Or so said the late great.....Whitman "Grady" Mayo. In a 1974 interview, compared Sanford & Son to the Andy Griffith Show saying the side characters and the writing was so strong for both shows, that they could've survived for years without either Andy or Redd Foxx. Anybody agree? Disagree?

I think what Whitman Mayo was trying to point out is that both shows were ensemble shows and as such no one actor could make or break the show by their absence.

Andy had said so himself but I disagree with him. I think the show proved that it wasn't the same when Don Knotts left. Of course the ratings proved otherwise as it was the #1 show in America during it's final season and Mayberry R.F.D. continued without Griffith for 3 seasons and was ranked in the top 20 for all 3.

Whitman was wrong, at least regarding Sanford......Sanford went on as The Sanford Arms....but without Redd or Demond Wilson, viewers passed on it in droves.

Whitman was wrong, at least regarding Sanford......Sanford went on as The Sanford Arms....but without Redd or Demond Wilson, viewers passed on it in droves.
I think he was deluted because the ratings for Sanford didn't drop when Redd walked out. I was only a kid then but I just figured that Redd was sick or something. I had no idea what was going on. And then in the fall, he was back. lol Television didn't report on things like that back then. If you didn't buy the tv magazines, you were in the dark. lol

But Demond was still there, Fred was mentioned a lot in the episodes, so the presence was still felt and no one seriously thought Redd was gone for good. Had Redd walked out for good, it may have been a different story, but we will never know it. I tend to skip those episodes anyway when the rerun rotation comes around to that era. Grady to me was very annoying.

From what I read years ago in my "Book of Lists", Sanford & Son got its highest rating ever for an episode where Redd Foxx was on one of his boycotts and Grady was living in the house in Fred's place. The episode, entitled "Once a Thief", originally aired 12/27/74, in the Christmas/New Year's week which is usually low-rated and often has a lot of reruns. This episode's performance may be a key to why Whitman Mayo got his own brief try at spinning off Grady Wilson to his own limited series spinoff, Grady.

The thing about Andy Griffith is that he was the normal center of the show. All the wacky citizens of Mayberry work best if there's a normal character in the lead. So in that sense, Andy was needed. Though, as was also pointed out, the show ran for three succesfull seasons without Andy (under a different title). But even then, they had a normal guy (Ken Berry) at the center.

As for "Sanford and Son", I never cared for many of the regular characters. They all just really annoyed me. So I think that show relied more on the two stars being there. If you have a REALLY STRONG SUPPORTING cast, then you may survive without the lead. I don't think S&S's supporting cast was strong enough.

IMO, Andy was the heart of the show. Yes, there were some good supporting characters but not good enough to replace Andy. TAGS might have been able to limp along for maybe 1/2 a season w/o Andy - but the show never have been the same.

Look at what happened when Bea Benaderet passed away during Petticoat Junction. Some main characters are so integral to the show that when they go the show pretty much does too. And its a double blow when the actor playing the main role is fabulous in the part. (Like Andy and Bea)

But Demond was still there, Fred was mentioned a lot in the episodes

There was also SANFORD that aired on BET which was OK and Fred was still there and Lamont was mentioned often.

I say that both Andy and Redd was needed or the shows would flop as their characters are main stays.

The thing about Andy Griffith is that he was the normal center of the show. All the wacky citizens of Mayberry work best if there's a normal character in the lead. So in that sense, Andy was needed. Though, as was also pointed out, the show ran for three succesfull seasons without Andy (under a different title). But even then, they had a normal guy (Ken Berry) at the center.

As for "Sanford and Son", I never cared for many of the regular characters. They all just really annoyed me. So I think that show relied more on the two stars being there. If you have a REALLY STRONG SUPPORTING cast, then you may survive without the lead. I don't think S&S's supporting cast was strong enough.

Saying The Andy Griffith Show didn't need Andy is like saying Barney
Miller didn't need Hal Linden or Evening Shade didn't need Burt Reynolds. Each was an ensemble show with a cast of zany, offbeat supporting characters and a "normal" guy as the hub to provide the viewer
with someone to relate to (and the more wacky characters to play off). In
the case of Evening Shade, though, I must admit that, for a straight
man, Wood Newton (Reynolds) got off some pretty good zingers of his own!

IMO, Andy was the heart of the show. Yes, there were some good supporting characters but not good enough to replace Andy. (Like Andy and Bea)

Absolutely agree Oh Nuts...while the supporting cast in general were superb..you have to have a central character that everybody believes in and trusts to make it work. I would liken it to a basketball team without a Center. Sure, the other guys make shots and do cool things - but without the Center to do the real work and get rebounds, they are lost.

Andy was the "Center" of the team.

Saying The Andy Griffith Show didn't need Andy is like saying Barney
Miller didn't need Hal Linden or Evening Shade didn't need Burt Reynolds. Each was an ensemble show with a cast of zany, offbeat supporting characters and a "normal" guy as the hub to provide the viewer
with someone to relate to (and the more wacky characters to play off). In
the case of Evening Shade, though, I must admit that, for a straight
man, Wood Newton (Reynolds) got off some pretty good zingers of his own!

Somehow I missed this post before.

Speaking of Barney Miller even Hal Linden himself said (in the tribute to Jack Soo episode) that no actor is indispensable. I believe that. I think it's all in the writing and casting to keep the show afloat with cast changes. It's better for the overall run if the star of the show stays till the end but as long as the writers do their job and the new cast member is someone who has some chemistry with the cast then it can still be good - different but good.

Well, Redd Foxx WAS "Sanford & Son". I refused to ever watch S&S with Whitman Mayo....he seemed like a slimy, drunk guy to me......

TAGS without Andy Griffith would have been dull, like The Mary Tyler Moore Show without Mary Tyler Moore. These people serve as the nucleus of the show, the one anchor of sanity in an otherwise merry band of oddballs or halfwits. These characters don't work unless they have the star, the nucleus, to bounce off of.

Andy is the straight man on the show, supporting the "zany" side characters. A lot of leading actors played this role in the series. Seinfeld himself was not that funny, George was funny. Seinfeld needs George, but the show was called Seinfeld and not (Jason) Alexander. Barney Fife, Floyd the Barber, Otis, Gomer and to a lesser degree Goober were the funny ones.

The show lasted three years without Andy called Mayberry RFD, similar setting, a single father with a son, Aunt Bee was working for them, etc.

Sanford and Son needed the dynamic of Redd Foxx and Demond Wilson together, or it didn't work. Grady wasn't Fred. Grady had his own show and flopped. Redd Foxx's "Sanford" (with no Son) flopped (but I watched it as a kid and actually liked the obese redneck and thought that was a funny pair)

The balance between Andy and Barney was the heart of the shoe. Same with Fred and Lamont. Both shows had good minor characters that worked within the framework of the show, but not without the main stars. Mayberry RFD was an OK show, but, like the last few years of Andy Griffith was lacking that interaction between Andy and Barney. Sanford Arms and Sanford also lacked th main chemisty between the two main stars.