This show is often included on lists of biggest bombs ever. But was it really? Okay, the critics were particularly harsh: a poll of critics at the time determined it to be the worst show on television that season. Worse than Mr. Belvedere? Worse than Perfect Strangers? Alf? I don't think so, but maybe I'm biased. Then again, the critics started attacking the show long before it went on the air, before any of them even saw it. Why, I don't know. Compared to most of what was on the air at that time, I don't think it was so bad. It was no Cheers or Cosby Show or Golden Girls, but it sure beat the heck out of Valerie and My Sister Sam and many others, in my opinion. Personal opinions aside, why did it fail? And how big a ratings disaster was it, and why?

Yes, the ratings drop was dramatic. It started out at a respectable 23rd place for the premiere episode, then dropped to 56th place a week later, 66th place the week after that. By the final broadcast, it was down to 71st place out of 76 shows. And The Ellen Burstyn Show, which followed it and got yanked off the air along with it, was in 72nd place in that eighth and final week. (Unaired episodes of The Ellen Burstyn Show were run that summer on ABC, but Life with Lucy ("LWL") never saw the light of day again on the network after November). Maybe that rapid drop is where it gets the "biggest bomb" designation. The drop in ratings may have been due to viewers setting their expectations too high, expecting it to be I Love Lucy and being disappointed that it wasn't. Certainly by that impossible standard it falls way short. Maybe that's why viewers abandoned it. But the way it's been written, one would thing this show came in and single-handedly destroyed ABC's 8:00 Saturday night time slot. But history tells a very different story.

Life with Lucy was just one in a long list of failures in that time slot on ABC.

While the ratings drop for LWL is startling, what is often overlooked is the fact that the 8:00 PM Saturday time slot is the worst place on the schedule a show would want to be. Rarely do you get a big hit at that time. A very rare exception is All in the Family in the '70s -- more about that later -- but normally, this is just a bad time slot. And what gets lost in the whole history of what happened with LWL is that ABC had been struggling with that slot for years. The last success ABC had in the Saturday 8:00 PM time period was with T.J. Hooker when it came on the air as a mid-season replacement in March 1982. It managed to squeeze into the top 30 shows that season, at 29th place, but that initial season was a very short one for T.J. Hooker -- only 5 episodes -- and after that point it never was back in the top 30 again. It's ratings slowly declined over the next few seasons until it was finally cancelled at the end of the 1984-85 season.

Hoping to change its fortunes, in the fall of 1985 ABC filled the Saturday 8:00 to 9:00 timeslot with a Miami Vice knock-off called Hollywood Beat, which starred Jack Scalia. And guess how long Hollywood Beat lasted in that time slot before being abruptly cancelled? Eight episodes total, exactly the same as LWL would a year later! Hollywood Beat premiered on September 21, 1985 and, as it couldn't get out of the bottom five in the ratings, it had its final broadcast on November 23, 1985. Hollywood Beat at least once even came in dead last in the ratings:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6kkaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=byYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3343,841981&dq=hollywood+beat&hl=en

With Hollywood Beat cancelled, ABC moved its veteran series, The Fall Guy, into the 8:00 Saturday slot on November 30, 1985. But that show only lasted there five weeks before it was taken away. By its second week in that slot, The Fall Guy was in 72nd place. And after the January 4, 1986 broadcast, it was abruptly moved to another night and replaced later that month by the new series, The Redd Foxx Show. And how did The Redd Foxx Show do? For its premiere on January 18, 1986 it was in 46th place for the week. And in the weeks that followed, it dropped like a rock. A couple weeks later it had dropped to 57th place, then 61st, then 65th, and ultimately, after the March 1, 1986 broadcast, it was yanked from Saturday night and moved to Friday night where it struggled for another month before being cancelled altogether.

So with no success throughout the 1985-1986 season, ABC was counting on Life with Lucy to work a miracle for them. Of course, we now know that no miracle happened. Life with Lucy suffered the same fate as the three series that held that time period before it. And when ABC abruptly pulled Life with Lucy and The Ellen Burstyn Show after their November 15, 1986 broadcasts, where they placed 71st and 72nd place, respectively, they were replaced by Sledgehammer and Sidekicks, two shows that had been airing on Friday nights. So what happened then? Well, they performed pretty much just as Life with Lucy and The Ellen Burstyn Show had, placing 65th place or lower in the ratings. In mid February 1987, only three months after moving into the time slot, both shows were yanked by ABC and replaced with an hour-long series, Starman (based on the Jeff Bridges movie of the same name). By the time ABC yanked Starman from the 8:00 PM Saturday time slot on May 2, 1987, just a little over two months later, it was also down in the ratings cellar, at 75th place.

The next show to premiere in that time period in the fall of 1987 was Once a Hero. It did SO badly, it got yanked after only THREE episodes and was the first show cancelled that season:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=_t8iAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DcwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=897,6422921&dq=once-a-hero+ratings&hl=en

So by comparison, Life with Lucy, with its 8 episodes, was a long-running series!

For several more years, ABC continued to struggle with the 8 PM Saturday time slot. In the fall of 1988 they tried George Segal in Murphy's Law. It wound up in 94th place that year. In the fall of 1989, they moved the long-running Mr. Belvedere there. It wound up in 105th place for the season. In Fall 1990, it was The Young Riders, which ended up in 70th place. In Fall 1991 they tried the long-running Who's the Boss?, which wound up in 76th place. In 1992 it was Covington Cross (85th place). In 1993, it was George (68th place). In 1994, it was The ABC Family Movie (104th place). In 1995, The Jeff Foxworthy Show (96th place). Second Noah in 1996 (#113). C-16 in 1997 (#124). America's Funniest Home Videos in 1998 (#109). The ABC Big Picture Show in 1999 (#69). The ABC Big Picture Show again in 2000 (#83). ABC Saturday Night Movie in 2001 (#99).

So as you can see, bad ratings in ABC's 8:00 Saturday night time slot have been the norm for decades. I think with LWL, ABC thought that bringing back television's biggest comedy legend, who had never failed before, was a sure bet. What they didn't consider was what it takes for a show to be a hit in that time period. If you look at history, it seems to require something that either 1) appeals to a very young audience (which LWL's competition, The Facts of Life, with its loyal viewers, did); or 2) to draw in the adult viewers, is truly unique and special. Adults traditionally go out on Saturday nights. So to bring them back home to watch television on their night out, there has to be a very compelling reason.

I alluded above to the huge success that All in the Family had for CBS in that time period in the 1970s. First of all, All in the Family didn't start out on Saturday nights. When it launched in the spring of 1971, it was on Tuesday nights. During the summer of 1971 it was on Wednesday nights and got discovered by viewers and quickly built a huge following. When it moved to Saturday nights, they followed because unique and special it was in every sense. There was nothing like it to be found anywhere on television at that time. It was the must-see show that people discussed at the water cooler. Nobody wanted to miss it. Besides, CBS built up its entire Saturday night with superb shows to make the entire night an event, one not to miss. Being at home on Saturday night watching CBS had a better guarantee of satisfactory entertainment than going out to the movies. And on no other night of the week would anyone have found anything quite like All in the Family.

That wasn't the case with LWL. This was Lucille Ball back doing what she had done throughout her entire television career, what viewers could find her doing any day of the week in reruns of I Love Lucy, The Lucy Show, and Here's Lucy, which were all available at that time. While, as I said above, I don't think LWL was a bad show, I also don't think it was as good as any of her previous series. So essentially she was competing against herself. LWL did not offer anything unique to bring the adults home on a Saturday night. And the young folks who were at home were still tuning into The Facts of Life as they had been in the habit of doing for several years. There was plenty better Lucy to be seen any other day of the week, so for Lucille Ball to succeed in the Saturday 8 PM time slot, she needed to be doing something totally different than LWL, like The Golden Girls. And for LWL to have a chance at succeeding at all, it needed to be on a different night. For the reasons above, there's no way it could have ever survived on a Saturday night.

1) Lucy was "rusty"- she hadn't attempted a weekly situation comedy since "HERE'S LUCY" had ended production in 1974. There was also the fact that husband Gary Morton, who served as co-exeuctive producer of the series with Aaron Spelling {who never produced a successful sitcom of his own}, "connived" Lucy into doing it by first putting the "package" together with Aaron, writer/producers Madelyn Davis & Bob Carroll Jr., Gale Gordon [who was coaxed out of retirement to appear in it], Warner Bros. Television and the network, before offering it to her, knowing she wasn't going to turn down something that depended on her participation, with so many people involved. All he saw in the show was one last chance to make a little more money off his wife.
2) The bad time period it was scheduled in- ABC indeed had a string of flops on Saturdays at 8pm(et) during that latter half of the '80s {who could top NBC's "THE FACTS OF LIFE"?}.
3) Changing tastes. Viewers just weren't interested in Lucy's 1986 variation of her "slapstick with warmth" formula. Why should they watch "LIFE WITH LUCY" when they could see her- in her prime- in repeats on their local stations?

:tv:

Does anyone agree with me on my statement below?????

I just got my hands on the whole series and have been enjoying it for the first time ever. I expected a really bad show from all the research I have done on the series. To my surprise, I caught myself loving this show.

I even think it is better than stale Here's Lucy. I love 80's shows and am a big fan of the era. Here's Lucy (which was a top hit), is said to be a better show. Then why am I struggling to get through a season at a time because the set is awful, styles are hideous, writing very bland, and guest stars are just themselves. To me the Unique Employment Agency doesn't even look like a business.

Life With Lucy has alot of great funny moments. The kids are excellent actors, and Lucy and Gale are tremendous. The mom (as many see as a bad actress) really isn't, that's just how her character's persona is. The dad however does exajerate his lines many times.

I have read many reviews of how Lucy shouldn't have re-arranged the hardware shop in alphabetical order because a 70 year old knows better than that.

But what the critics forget was, it is something Lucy would do. If you took Lucy Ricardo, and put her in an 80's sitcom (with a few minor twists) you get Lucy Barker in Life with Lucy.

I loved the part where Lucy rearranges the hardware shop, whips out her sax in the episode Lucy is a Sax Symbol, the messy extinguisher, the lounge chair she thought was fixed, vacuuming off a nasty womans skirt, shaking her butt while dancing to a modern rock group.

Lucille Ball was excellent and this series is way better than Here's Lucy in my opinon.

______________________________________________________________
The critics can be wrong, and also as a fan of Facts of Life, that show was lucky the critics didn't kill them like 'Life With Lucy'. Facts of Life was known as the poison pen letter to NBC and predicted by critics to make NBC go away completely. WOW!!!!!! Facts of Life ratings got better because of the bad reviews of Life With Lucy, if you research, it was the top show in the timeslot against it's competition, but was the worst rated show on NBC Saturday Nights, hurting The Golden Girls ratings and shows that followed it; which is why it ended up getting cancelled in 1988. Very ironic huh..... :)

Life With Lucy wasn't a bad show, i think lucille ball did a great job. If the critics would have praised the show from the get go---- I know it would have not been cancelled.

Yes, the timeslot was a huge mistake up against NBC's Facts of Life, it would have been better on a weeknight. But it's also interesting to know that not only was Facts of Life on, but you had 227 and The Golden Girls. ABC put it in a doomed timeslot and NBC was a powerhouse with Cosby as well. Alf dominated monday nights too.

The world was ready for Life With Lucy, and the critics killed the show with their nasty comments about Lucille Ball coming back to work and how she is old and should be dead. The family sitcom was huge in 1985, and it should have worked.

I disagree with alot of people, and I was prepared to hate the show, my curiosity got the better of me. And find this a classic hidden treasure.

I also have Life With Lucy and I watched all the episodes and thought it was pretty good. My favorite episode is with John Ritter.

Does anyone agree with me on my statement below?????

Yes, I agree with you, except that I think Here's Lucy was a better show early in its run. But it did become stale, like you say, and Life with Lucy was better. The fourth season of Here's Lucy was particularly bad (Lucille Ball's worst season ever IMO), and Life with Lucy is much, much better than that.

I know my post above is long, but I'm trying to take people through a bit of the history of ABC's 8:00 PM Saturday night time slot and show that there was absolutely nothing unique about the performance of Life with Lucy in that time slot. These claims that Life with Lucy is one of the biggest bombs in history are bogus. For at least twenty years EVERYTHING ABC put in that time slot bombed . . . EVERYTHING, just as badly or even WORSE than Life with Lucy. There was NOTHING unusual about Life with Lucy's ratings in that time slot, they were just unusual for Lucille Ball.

Everything ABC put in that slot got yanked after just two or three months (or less). One show (the one that debuted there a year after Life with Lucy) got yanked after just three weeks! ABC tried everything there: veteran superstars like Redd Foxx, fresh new stars like Jeff Foxworthy, veteran series like Who's the Boss? and America's Funniest Home Videos, a new show based on a popular movie (Starman), and much more, but all with the same result: they all bombed badly. In some cases, they showed some mercy and would move a show out of that time period and to a better place on ABC's schedule, for example America's Funniest Home Videos, which is still on the air nearly 13 years after ABC moved it to a better slot. It's too bad ABC didn't show Life with Lucy the same mercy.

I read both your articles above Little Ricky, and I totally agree with you. The timeslot made Life With Lucy an Epic Failure.

The show was killed by the critics, and it is bogus, like you said to rate it one of the worst shows ever. Here's Lucy is starting to get boring to me as I am enjoying MPI's DVD releases and never seen them before. There are a handful of episodes that are good, the rest, yuck. If Here's Lucy was on TV Land, they would pull the plug because in today's world, it's a stale sitcom, Life with Lucy i think would do well, although only 13 episodes. :(

Life with Lucy has that 80's sitcom feel, Family problems, it's not all slapstick and there are dramatic and touching moments, which is what 80's sitcoms did.

If Lucille Ball was alive today, lets' say she's not 100, and she wanted to do a sitcom like 'life with lucy'. I think the audience would embrace it. We as a society are so nostalgic, even more so now, that many years have passed, and DVD sets kind of killed I Love Lucy in reruns. I think she would have her own successful sitcom.

The critics should be ashamed of themselves for driving lucy into depression. I saw her Joan Rivers guest appearance, how sad is that she went home crying after reading the reviews, and she thought no one liked her anymore.

I love Facts of Life and Life With Lucy -- and let me tell you, the critics hate both of those shows. lol. They still should have put it behind their most successful sitcom on the network, maybe Who's the Boss? or Growing Pains And a better theme would have helped.

I love Facts of Life and Life With Lucy -- and let me tell you, the critics hate both of those shows. lol. They still should have put it behind their most successful sitcom on the network, maybe Who's the Boss? or Growing Pains And a better theme would have helped.

That would have been a great lineup. And here's an irony about Who's the Boss? and that time slot. In the 1990-91 season, Who's the Boss? was ranked #19 in the ratings. Pretty solid. Then for the 1991-92 season, ABC moved Who's the Boss? to Life with Lucy's old time slot where, like every other show ABC put in that time slot, it dropped like a rock to 76th place. That time slot was obviously death row for any show on ABC.

Yes, I've seen that Joan Rivers interview you mention (it's on Youtube). When Lucy talked about the reviews making her cry, I'm sure this one by some Bill Anderson guy must have been one of the ones she was referring to, which was published a month-and-a-half before the debut of Life with Lucy. I can remember reading this at the time and was shocked anyone would write such a thing, much less publish it. This was before anyone had even seen the show. It was just downright cruel.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ZohWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=U0ENAAAAIBAJ&pg=5235,2035727&dq=lucille+ball+pathetic&hl=en

Bill Anderson butchered her from the start. He already made assumpitions about Lucy before giving her a chance, he wanted to ridicule the queen of comedy. So sick.




That would have been a great lineup. And here's an irony about Who's the Boss? and that time slot. In the 1990-91 season, Who's the Boss? was ranked #19 in the ratings. Pretty solid. Then for the 1991-92 season, ABC moved Who's the Boss? to Life with Lucy's old time slot where, like every other show ABC put in that time slot, it dropped like a rock to 76th place. That time slot was obviously death row for any show on ABC.

Yes, I've seen that Joan Rivers interview you mention (it's on Youtube). When Lucy talked about the reviews making her cry, I'm sure this one by some Bill Anderson guy must have been one of the ones she was referring to, which was published a month-and-a-half before the debut of Life with Lucy. I can remember reading this at the time and was shocked anyone would write such a thing, much less publish it. This was before anyone had even seen the show. It was just downright cruel.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ZohWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=U0ENAAAAIBAJ&pg=5235,2035727&dq=lucille+ball+pathetic&hl=en

That Saturday at 8PM death slot killed a lot of long running shows over the years. Besides the shows already mentioned, 'The Donna Reed Show', 'Bewitched' and 'The Partridge Family' were also sent there to die. So who knows, by placing 'Life with Lucy' there, maybe they thought the show was already DOA.

If I were in charge of casting 'Life with Lucy' and could choose whoever I wanted, I would have cast Lucie Arnaz and John Ritter as Lucy's daughter and son-in-law.

That Saturday at 8PM death slot killed a lot of long running shows over the years. Besides the shows already mentioned, 'The Donna Reed Show', 'Bewitched' and 'The Partridge Family' were also sent there to die. So who knows, by placing 'Life with Lucy' there, maybe they thought the show was already DOA.

If I were in charge of casting 'Life with Lucy' and could choose whoever I wanted, I would have cast Lucie Arnaz and John Ritter as Lucy's daughter and son-in-law.
All in the Family must have been the exception to the Saturday at 8:PM death rule!

All in the Family must have been the exception to the Saturday at 8:PM death rule!

Yes, I mentioned All in the Family in my original post at the top and explained my theory about why it succeeded at that time. Of course, that was also CBS. It was ABC that perennially failed to gain any traction in that Saturday night hour.


Bill Anderson butchered her from the start. He already made assumpitions about Lucy before giving her a chance, he wanted to ridicule the queen of comedy. So sick.

Do you know who this Bill Anderson person is? I'm unfamiliar with him, other than the mean article he wrote about Lucille Ball. Maybe he's the real loser.


If I were in charge of casting 'Life with Lucy' and could choose whoever I wanted, I would have cast Lucie Arnaz and John Ritter as Lucy's daughter and son-in-law.

I like that casting idea, but at the time Lucie Arnaz was trying hard to establish a unique career identity and would get annoyed when interviewers would start talking to her about her mother rather than her own career. As for John Ritter, he was fresh off of Three's Company and its successor, Three's a Crowd. I can't imagine him taking a supporting role in any show at that point. He was an A-list celebrity.

Hello Everyone -

My newest post at my blog, Classic TV Corner (at Jack Myers' Mediabistro.com) is about Life With Lucy. And I was made aware of this topic here at the "I Love Lucy" forum, and I thought to post the link.

You will find that link below, along with a link to The Classic TV Preservation Society, for which I serve as Founder and Executive Director.

Many thanks,

Herbie J Pilato

http://www.mediabizbloggers.com/herbie-pilato/Life-With-Lucy---25-Years-Later-This-Show-And-Its-Star-Lucille-Ball-Deserved-More-Respect---Herbie-J-Pilato.html


www.classicTVPS.blogspot.com

I believe Life with Lucy aired opposite The Golden Girls on Sat. nights in 1986. It got killed.

I believe Life with Lucy aired opposite The Golden Girls on Sat. nights in 1986. It got killed.

No, it aired opposite The Facts of Life. They were both on at 8:00 PM. The Golden Girls wasn't on until 9:00. Check my post at the top. I give almost 20 years of ratings history for that 8:00 Saturday time slot on ABC. The ratings Life with Lucy got were NORMALfor ABC in that time slot. Everything failed for ABC, not just LWL.

There's no way they would have put Lucy up against The Golden Girls in the same time slot. Betty White and Bea Arthur were personal friends of hers and I don't think Lucy would have stood for that.

ABC finally found a solution for the Saturday night 8 pm death slot: College Football.
Think about it: College football especially the SEC and PAC 10 Conferences, have a built in fan base from the colleges in that conference. Guys will stay home to watch the game, especially if their team has a shot at a bowl game, it's a rivalry game or they have a shot at the National Championship playoff.
Since ABC is part of ESPN/Disney, it cost them nothing to simulcast or use the ESPN feed to broadcast. CBS does the same thing with the SEC on Saturday night and now NBC with Prime Time Boxing.

Does anyone agree with me on my statement below?????

I just got my hands on the whole series and have been enjoying it for the first time ever. I expected a really bad show from all the research I have done on the series. To my surprise, I caught myself loving this show.

I even think it is better than stale Here's Lucy. I love 80's shows and am a big fan of the era. Here's Lucy (which was a top hit), is said to be a better show. Then why am I struggling to get through a season at a time because the set is awful, styles are hideous, writing very bland, and guest stars are just themselves. To me the Unique Employment Agency doesn't even look like a business.

Life With Lucy has alot of great funny moments. The kids are excellent actors, and Lucy and Gale are tremendous. The mom (as many see as a bad actress) really isn't, that's just how her character's persona is. The dad however does exajerate his lines many times.

I have read many reviews of how Lucy shouldn't have re-arranged the hardware shop in alphabetical order because a 70 year old knows better than that.

But what the critics forget was, it is something Lucy would do. If you took Lucy Ricardo, and put her in an 80's sitcom (with a few minor twists) you get Lucy Barker in Life with Lucy.

I loved the part where Lucy rearranges the hardware shop, whips out her sax in the episode Lucy is a Sax Symbol, the messy extinguisher, the lounge chair she thought was fixed, vacuuming off a nasty womans skirt, shaking her butt while dancing to a modern rock group.

Lucille Ball was excellent and this series is way better than Here's Lucy in my opinon.

______________________________________________________________
The critics can be wrong, and also as a fan of Facts of Life, that show was lucky the critics didn't kill them like 'Life With Lucy'. Facts of Life was known as the poison pen letter to NBC and predicted by critics to make NBC go away completely. WOW!!!!!! Facts of Life ratings got better because of the bad reviews of Life With Lucy, if you research, it was the top show in the timeslot against it's competition, but was the worst rated show on NBC Saturday Nights, hurting The Golden Girls ratings and shows that followed it; which is why it ended up getting cancelled in 1988. Very ironic huh..... :)

Life With Lucy wasn't a bad show, i think lucille ball did a great job. If the critics would have praised the show from the get go---- I know it would have not been cancelled.

Yes, the timeslot was a huge mistake up against NBC's Facts of Life, it would have been better on a weeknight. But it's also interesting to know that not only was Facts of Life on, but you had 227 and The Golden Girls. ABC put it in a doomed timeslot and NBC was a powerhouse with Cosby as well. Alf dominated monday nights too.

The world was ready for Life With Lucy, and the critics killed the show with their nasty comments about Lucille Ball coming back to work and how she is old and should be dead. The family sitcom was huge in 1985, and it should have worked.

I disagree with alot of people, and I was prepared to hate the show, my curiosity got the better of me. And find this a classic hidden treasure.


Finally!! So, I'm not the only one! Sounds like you like it even more than I do---and I certainly got some joy out of what I've seen of it! I don't think it was bad. It just wasn't edgy, and people talk like that's a bad thing. But a mild-humored, family show like this should have struck them as "safe", "familiar", and "sweet". Instead, so many people rag on it---and to my surprise, even the best aspects of this show get insulted---like the casting of Gale Gordon. To me, that was a beautiful reunion, a nostalgic trip that is heartwarming. But apparently, people miss the point.

Anyway, thank you for showing that not everyone agrees that LWL was a bad show---thank you for proving that some of us really like it---and that there are things about it for which to like! :)

I know my post above is long, but I'm trying to take people through a bit of the history of ABC's 8:00 PM Saturday night time slot and show that there was absolutely nothing unique about the performance of Life with Lucy in that time slot. These claims that Life with Lucy is one of the biggest bombs in history are bogus. For at least twenty years EVERYTHING ABC put in that time slot bombed . . . EVERYTHING, just as badly or even WORSE than Life with Lucy. There was NOTHING unusual about Life with Lucy's ratings in that time slot, they were just unusual for Lucille Ball.

I really appreciate you pointing this out, because it makes me feel a little less like an oddball for liking the show and it makes me feel better that Lucy wasn't the only one who went through that with her last show. As you say, the struggles of LWL weren't unusual---it was only unusual for Lucille Ball. And, in that respect, I think the network must have set unrealistic expectations for LWL, which would hurt it too.

It seems to me that the LWL time-slot would have been better suited for a movie-of-the-week kind of thing that didn't rely so heavily on ratings.

Without knowing how LWL would have fared in a better time-slot, there's really no way of knowing what its true fate would have been. It's just unfortunate that the failure of the show was blamed so much on Lucy by critics, etc. rather than taking into account the history of the network itself.

On another note, I like the setting of LWL much better than the employment agency or bank settings of her other two shows; there is something about a store---even a hardware store---that is just more fun. Especially when it's an intimate little family store, like in LWL, with a sense of community but also a refreshing element of surprise when a famous passer-by might wander in ;)

Saturday nights are the death nell for tv. Back then, though, it wasnt. I have never seen LWL so I can't judge. I do think that 8 episodes isnt enough to judge if a show should be pulled or not. How about building an audience? Seemed like everybody expected I Love Lucy from the get go. They should have given it time. Although, if it did fail maybe it was because it was too much like I Love Lucy, Here's Lucy, The Lucy Show with the same gags etc.

Saturday nights are the death nell for tv. Back then, though, it wasnt. I have never seen LWL so I can't judge. I do think that 8 episodes isnt enough to judge if a show should be pulled or not. How about building an audience? Seemed like everybody expected I Love Lucy from the get go. They should have given it time. Although, if it did fail maybe it was because it was too much like I Love Lucy, Here's Lucy, The Lucy Show with the same gags etc.
Saturday wasn't a death slot back then but the ABC 8 PM Saturday slot was. Except for TJ Hooker, Nothing worked there for years.

Lucy should have co starred in a supporting role in another sitcom.

Lucy should have co starred in a supporting role in another sitcom.


Yeah, maybe she could have become "The Golden Girls" next door neighbor! She's worked with Ms. Arthur and had been longtime friends with Miss White so it may have been a blast!

Yeah, maybe she could have become "The Golden Girls" next door neighbor! She's worked with Ms. Arthur and had been longtime friends with Miss White so it may have been a blast!

I wouldn't have minded that as something in addition to her own show, but not instead of her own show. I liked LIFE WITH LUCY.

TV Trash: Life With Lucy (http://www.manic-expression.com/tv-trash-life-with-lucy/)

TV Trash: Life With Lucy (http://www.manic-expression.com/tv-trash-life-with-lucy/)


This doesn't really add anything to the discussion. This guy is reciting the same old oft-repeated arguments about why the show failed. Nothing he says is original. My point for this thread is to look at what all these copycat critics always ignore when criticizing this show: the time slot. Time slot is the most critical element of programming, and can cause a show to succeed or fail. I'm not going to repeat everything I wrote in the OP, but the fact is, for two decades, ABC was unable to score a single hit in this time slot, no matter what show they put on, or what performer. Big name veteran stars like Redd Foxx bombed; up and coming sensations like Jeff Foxworthy bombed; previous hit shows like Who's the Boss? and America's Funniest Home Videos took a nosedive; innovative new shows bombed; movies of the week bombed. If he and these other critics can't even address the fundamental reason why nothing else succeeded in this time slot, then everything else they say lacks credibility. They just want to hear themselves talk.

I'd like to watch LML again just to make an assessment.

This doesn't really add anything to the discussion. This guy is reciting the same old oft-repeated arguments about why the show failed. Nothing he says is original. My point for this thread is to look at what all these copycat critics always ignore when criticizing this show: the time slot. Time slot is the most critical element of programming, and can cause a show to succeed or fail. I'm not going to repeat everything I wrote in the OP, but the fact is, for two decades, ABC was unable to score a single hit in this time slot, no matter what show they put on, or what performer. Big name veteran stars like Redd Foxx bombed; up and coming sensations like Jeff Foxworthy bombed; previous hit shows like Who's the Boss? and America's Funniest Home Videos took a nosedive; innovative new shows bombed; movies of the week bombed. If he and these other critics can't even address the fundamental reason why nothing else succeeded in this time slot, then everything else they say lacks credibility. They just want to hear themselves talk.

In fairness, I simply think that Chris Moore AKA "The Rowdy Reviewer" was looking at Life with Lucy "on its own terms" (was the show actually "good" from a quality point of view), regardless of its timeslot. Even had LWL had a more desirable/"winnable" timeslot, a show at the end of the day, should be able to "stand on its own" so to speak. In other words, why should its timeslot most closely reflect its actual quality, good or bad?

In fairness, I simply think that Chris Moore AKA "The Rowdy Reviewer" was looking at Life with Lucy "on its own terms" (was the show actually "good" from a quality point of view), regardless of its timeslot. Even had LWL had a more desirable/"winnable" timeslot, a show at the end of the day, should be able to "stand on its own" so to speak. In other words, why should its timeslot most closely reflect its actual quality, good or bad?

I won't argue that LWL was a great show because it wasn't. But it wasn't a bad show, either (with the exception of that bizarre/absurd harmonica scene with John Ritter). It was a pleasant little show, no better or worse than many of the sitcoms on at the time (e.g., Perfect Strangers, Kate & Allie). But "pleasant" little shows (particularly if they are lesser versions of a classic show seen daily in reruns) aren't a compelling enough reason to stay home on Saturday night. And they won't "stand on their own": they need a strong lead in; they shouldn't be the lead in. I explained in my OP that LWL needed to be as good as I Love Lucy to succeed in that time slot; it had to give viewers something at least as good as what they saw every day in reruns -- a reason to stay home.

I watched Chris' video and he seemed to me to be trying to explain why the show failed. Critics like this conjure up IMO silly reasons that don't make much sense. He makes a point (and I've heard it many times before) that viewers in the '80s accepted I Love Lucy because it was from the '50s, but they would not accept a new show with the same humor. I can't even get my head around that argument: People loved tuning in every day to watch I Love Lucy reruns because why? Because they loved seeing physical comedy -- but only if it was old physical comedy? Huh? He goes on to acknowledge that some recent shows from that time, like Mork and Mindy, used physical comedy and still became hits in the '80s, but that was only because the actors were young. Scratching my head.

This then lead him to another argument I've heard many times, which is that viewers had a hard time watching LWL because Lucille Ball was 75 years old, and Gale Gordon was 80, so they were afraid they would hurt themselves doing the physical comedy. As someone who watched this show when it originally aired, I can tell you I never once thought, Gee, I can't watch this. Lucy and Gale might get hurt! I never heard anyone say that was a reason they didn't watch. That's just silly. This was a scripted, filmed (i.e., not live) sitcom, well rehearsed by the cast. Viewers were aware of this. They were not thinking that Lucy and Gale were somehow going to go off script while the cameras were rolling, hurt themselves, and that would make it on air and they would be subjected to it.

LWL was one show in a long line of shows that ABC aired on Saturday nights at 8:00 over the course of two decades. All those shows have one thing in common: low ratings. Some of those shows, like America's Funniest Home Videos, when moved to a different night saw their ratings go up. Many of the ABC shows that failed in that time slot were moved to other nights. Some succeeded, some failed. But LWL was never given that chance.

It may have been that Lucy was basically playing the same character again. If you look at her successful 3 shows before this one. Each one was less successful. Yes, they were successful but they never ranked higher in the ratings than the previous series.

If she had played a mature, smart character in Life with Lucy, it could have worked. Also, she could have done without slapstick and co star in the show. I would have love to see her do a drama in a supporting role.

I can't see her doing a dramatic role.

The critics can be wrong, and also as a fan of Facts of Life, that show was lucky the critics didn't kill them like 'Life With Lucy'. Facts of Life was known as the poison pen letter to NBC and predicted by critics to make NBC go away completely. WOW!!!!!! Facts of Life ratings got better because of the bad reviews of Life With Lucy, if you research, it was the top show in the timeslot against it's competition, but was the worst rated show on NBC Saturday Nights, hurting The Golden Girls ratings and shows that followed it; which is why it ended up getting cancelled in 1988. Very ironic huh..... :)

I understand that The Facts of Life's ratings were lower than those of 227, Golden Girls, and Amen during its last two seasons as the Saturday lead-off. The average ratings for all four of the above sitcoms for the 1987-88 season were down around two tenths from the 1986-87 season, with drama Hunter only losing a few tenths. I don't see how The Facts of Life "hurt" the ratings for 227, GG and Amen, though; I remember hearing that NBC still wanted TFoL to come back for the 1988-89 season despite that, but two of its stars decided to end it at season 9. Replacing TFoL on the NBC schedule in the fall of 1988 was a spin-off of TGG titled Empty Nest. Plus, Hunter's average rating for the following season actually grey by over a whole point.

Sorry for the off-topic. this probably should have been saved for the The Facts of Life forum.

It may have been that Lucy was basically playing the same character again. If you look at her successful 3 shows before this one. Each one was less successful. Yes, they were successful but they never ranked higher in the ratings than the previous series.

It seemed like by the time that she did Life With Lucy, Lucille Ball was in a way, coasting by her reputation/iconic status at the time. She must of figured that whatever "worked" in the past, would automatically work in 1986. When the show failed, Lucy incorrectly took it personally (like it was an indication that the general public didn't "like her" anymore, and just simply because the show itself wasn't very good).

It seemed obvious that Lucy didn't know, was too stubborn, or was ignorant to the notion that she probably would've been better suited to adapt with the changing times. As previously mentioned, The Golden Girls was a much funnier albeit more sophisticated and wittier program of the time centered on older women.

I'm reading these recent comments, and NONE are addressing my main point about time slot -- the very reason I started this thread in the first place. Why is that??? It's just people repeating the stuff critics have written, like Lucy doing old stuff. Well what about Jeff Foxworthy and all those others doing NEW '80s and '90s stuff and also flopping? So I'm re-posting sections of my initial thread. I would like someone to get to this core point of why EVERY show failed in this time slot over the course of two decades.

****************************************
While the ratings drop for LWL is startling, what is ALWAYS overlooked is the fact that the 8:00 PM Saturday time slot is the worst place on the schedule a show would want to be. Rarely do you get a big hit at that time. A very rare exception is All in the Family in the '70s -- more about that later -- but normally, this is just a bad time slot. And what gets lost in the whole history of what happened with LWL is that ABC had been struggling with that slot for years. The last success ABC had in the Saturday 8:00 PM time period was with T.J. Hooker when it came on the air as a mid-season replacement in March 1982. It managed to squeeze into the top 30 shows that season, at 29th place, but that initial season was a very short one for T.J. Hooker -- only 5 episodes -- and after that point it never was back in the top 30 again. It's ratings slowly declined over the next few seasons until it was finally cancelled at the end of the 1984-85 season.

Hoping to change its fortunes, in the fall of 1985 ABC filled the Saturday 8:00 to 9:00 timeslot with a Miami Vice knock-off called Hollywood Beat, which starred Jack Scalia. And guess how long Hollywood Beat lasted in that time slot before being abruptly cancelled? Eight episodes total, exactly the same as LWL would a year later! Hollywood Beat premiered on September 21, 1985 and, as it couldn't get out of the bottom five in the ratings, it had its final broadcast on November 23, 1985. Hollywood Beat at least once even came in dead last in the ratings:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...ood+beat&hl=en

With Hollywood Beat cancelled, ABC moved its veteran series, The Fall Guy, into the 8:00 Saturday slot on November 30, 1985. But that show only lasted there five weeks before it was taken away. By its second week in that slot, The Fall Guy was in 72nd place. And after the January 4, 1986 broadcast, it was abruptly moved to another night and replaced later that month by the new series, The Redd Foxx Show. And how did The Redd Foxx Show do? For its premiere on January 18, 1986 it was in 46th place for the week. And in the weeks that followed, it dropped like a rock. A couple weeks later it had dropped to 57th place, then 61st, then 65th, and ultimately, after the March 1, 1986 broadcast, it was yanked from Saturday night and moved to Friday night where it struggled for another month before being cancelled altogether.

So with no success throughout the 1985-1986 season, ABC was counting on Life with Lucy to work a miracle for them. Of course, we now know that no miracle happened. Life with Lucy suffered the same fate as the three series that held that time period before it. And when ABC abruptly pulled Life with Lucy and The Ellen Burstyn Show after their November 15, 1986 broadcasts, where they placed 71st and 72nd place, respectively, they were replaced by Sledgehammer and Sidekicks, two shows that had been airing on Friday nights. So what happened then? Well, they performed pretty much just as Life with Lucy and The Ellen Burstyn Show had, placing 65th place or lower in the ratings. In mid February 1987, only three months after moving into the time slot, both shows were yanked by ABC and replaced with an hour-long series, Starman (based on the Jeff Bridges movie of the same name). By the time ABC yanked Starman from the 8:00 PM Saturday time slot on May 2, 1987, just a little over two months later, it was also down in the ratings cellar, at 75th place.

The next show to premiere in that time period in the fall of 1987 was Once a Hero. It did SO badly, it got yanked after only THREE episodes and was the first show cancelled that season:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...+ratings&hl=en

So by comparison, Life with Lucy, with its 8 episodes, was a long-running series!

For several more years, ABC continued to struggle with the 8 PM Saturday time slot. In the fall of 1988 they tried George Segal in Murphy's Law. It wound up in 94th place that year. In the fall of 1989, they moved the long-running Mr. Belvedere there. It wound up in 105th place for the season. In Fall 1990, it was The Young Riders, which ended up in 70th place. In Fall 1991 they tried the long-running Who's the Boss?, which wound up in 76th place. In 1992 it was Covington Cross (85th place). In 1993, it was George (68th place). In 1994, it was The ABC Family Movie (104th place). In 1995, The Jeff Foxworthy Show (96th place). Second Noah in 1996 (#113). C-16 in 1997 (#124). America's Funniest Home Videos in 1998 (#109). The ABC Big Picture Show in 1999 (#69). The ABC Big Picture Show again in 2000 (#83). ABC Saturday Night Movie in 2001 (#99).

So as you can see, bad ratings in ABC's 8:00 Saturday night time slot have been the norm for decades. I think with LWL, ABC thought that bringing back television's biggest comedy legend, who had never failed before, was a sure bet. What they didn't consider was what it takes for a show to be a hit in that time period. If you look at history, it seems to require something that either 1) appeals to a very young audience (which LWL's competition, The Facts of Life, with its loyal viewers, did); or 2) to draw in the adult viewers, is truly unique and special. Adults traditionally go out on Saturday nights. So to bring them back home to watch television on their night out, there has to be a very compelling reason.

I alluded above to the huge success that All in the Family had for CBS in that time period in the 1970s. First of all, All in the Family didn't start out on Saturday nights. When it launched in the spring of 1971, it was on Tuesday nights. During the summer of 1971 it was on Wednesday nights and got discovered by viewers and quickly built a huge following. When it moved to Saturday nights, they followed because unique and special it was in every sense. There was nothing like it to be found anywhere on television at that time. It was the must-see show that people discussed at the water cooler. Nobody wanted to miss it. Besides, CBS built up its entire Saturday night with superb shows to make the entire night an event, one not to miss. Being at home on Saturday night watching CBS had a better guarantee of satisfactory entertainment than going out to the movies. And on no other night of the week would anyone have found anything quite like All in the Family.

That wasn't the case with LWL. This was Lucille Ball back doing what she had done throughout her entire television career, what viewers could find her doing any day of the week in reruns of I Love Lucy, The Lucy Show, and Here's Lucy, which were all available at that time. While, as I said above, I don't think LWL was a bad show, I also don't think it was as good as any of her previous series. So essentially she was competing against herself. LWL did not offer anything unique to bring the adults home on a Saturday night. And the young folks who were at home were still tuning into The Facts of Life as they had been in the habit of doing for several years. There was plenty better Lucy to be seen any other day of the week, so for Lucille Ball to succeed in the Saturday 8 PM time slot, she needed to be doing something totally different than LWL, like The Golden Girls. And for LWL to have a chance at succeeding at all, it needed to be on a different night. For the reasons above, there's no way it could have ever survived on a Saturday night.

You would have thought they would have learned that The Lucy Show and Here's Lucy didn't need kids so why would they do it a 3rd time. I would have suggested a series with Lucy, Gale Gordon, Mary Jane Croft and Mary Wickes.

I can't see her doing a dramatic role. She did a tv movie where she played a homeless woman and got great reviews. This was a year before Life with Lucy.

She did a tv movie where she played a homeless woman and got great reviews. This was a year before Life with Lucy.

Stone Pillow

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Pillow

She did a tv movie where she played a homeless woman and got great reviews. This was a year before Life with Lucy.

I thought the script for Stone Pillow was a times a bit contrived (as many TV movies are), but I found Lucille Ball's performance captivating and Emmy worthy. I'm sorry she didn't get a nomination, which I think she deserved. I also think at this point in her life and career, especially with the change in her voice, which limited some of the things she could do comedically, she should have continued pursuing dramatic roles. In fact, she was supposedly offered the starring role in Driving Miss Daisy, but I understand Gary Morton advised her not to do it. That, I think, was a huge mistake. Jessica Tandy won the Oscar for that role; I think Lucille Ball might have been able to win that same Oscar had taken advantage of the opportunity offered to her to star in that film. That would have been the icing on the cake for her legacy, and would have lifted her out of the depression that I think contributed to her death.

It was a bad show. Lucy had no variation in her voice and was clearly reading off cue cards. The friction between her and Gale Gordon's character was stale. Gale looked very old; it was a little uncomfortable to watch him be the show's second lead. The characters of the daughter and son-in-law were like cardboard cutouts. The cast had no chemistry; they didn't seem like family.

Worst of all, there were very few laughs. To try to trot out the same types of scripts and comedy style for Lucy's fourth sitcom was just a mistake.

I thought the script for Stone Pillow was a times a bit contrived (as many TV movies are), but I found Lucille Ball's performance captivating and Emmy worthy. I'm sorry she didn't get a nomination, which I think she deserved. I also think at this point in her life and career, especially with the change in her voice, which limited some of the things she could do comedically, she should have continued pursuing dramatic roles. In fact, she was supposedly offered the starring role in Driving Miss Daisy, but I understand Gary Morton advised her not to do it. That, I think, was a huge mistake. Jessica Tandy won the Oscar for that role; I think Lucille Ball might have been able to win that same Oscar had taken advantage of the opportunity offered to her to star in that film. That would have been the icing on the cake for her legacy, and would have lifted her out of the depression that I think contributed to her death.
Lucy should have taken the role anyway. If she had, she had won the Oscar. That would have been the role to top her career.

It was a bad show. Lucy had no variation in her voice and was clearly reading off cue cards. The friction between her and Gale Gordon's character was stale. Gale looked very old; it was a little uncomfortable to watch him be the show's second lead. The characters of the daughter and son-in-law were like cardboard cutouts. The cast had no chemistry; they didn't seem like family.

Worst of all, there were very few laughs. To try to trot out the same types of scripts and comedy style for Lucy's fourth sitcom was just a mistake.

In a sense, Lucille Ball was pretty much the type of comic who while funny when she was young, things didn't exactly translate as well as she got older. And in Lucy's case, her shtick just became flat out creepy with age. To be more specific, she simply aged out of her repertoire and it just became stupid and pathetic.

Maybe at the end of the day, Lucy never took any risks or tried to adjust the persona. Just because playing a ditzy young housewife worked in the 1950s, doesn't necessarily mean that ditzy upper middle aged widow with children (at least by the time that she did Here's Lucy) carried the same amount of comedy value.

Something I've always wanted to ask is why do you think that Lucille Ball didn't make it as a movie star? I'm baffled by this - she was both gorgeous and could act. Of course is she did, there would be no ILL.

As for Lucille Ball not doing drama, the irony is that drama is what first got her noticed. It was a 1942 movie with Henry Fonda (Side Street?) where she played a real (rhymes with which). Up until then she really wasn't noticed, but after that started getting better movie roles but still not making it big.

I watch a lot of Turner Classic Movies.

I saw her in a supporting role in "Backstage" with Ann Miller. That was also dramatic.

You would have thought they would have learned that The Lucy Show and Here's Lucy didn't need kids so why would they do it a 3rd time. I would have suggested a series with Lucy, Gale Gordon, Mary Jane Croft and Mary Wickes.
Probably because in the 1980's family comedies were in.

John Ritter's guest appearance is pretty much a microcosm for why this show didn't work.

iavRig0pND8

Lucy here, almost physically cripples him and it's all in the name of humor. This just about proved how out of touch her old writers were. Lucy was way too old to be doing her trademark physical comedy anyway. But what really what killed it was the horrible supporting cast - including two grandchildren and a son and daughter-in-law.

Lucy should have co starred in a supporting role in another sitcom.

Lucille Ball's biggest issue going back decades is that whenever she did jump back into acting, she just kept trying to redo the same show over and over and over and over, trying to recapture the I Love Lucy magic.

I always thought her best post-ILL role was in Yours, Mine, and Ours. It was something of a straightman role (except for the drunk scene), but it suited her. She came across as mature and warm. I could have seen her doing a role like that in the 70s - maybe playing a mother/grandmother to an extended family in an hour long comedy/drama a la Eight is Enough.

I have posted quite a bit here in the past with my review of the show. It's been a long time since I have watched an episode of Life With Lucy. I'd like to write about my current thoughts since Timelife has now released 4 episodes of Life With Lucy.

In 2018 we are living in a world of revivals on television. Nostalgic as ever for yesteryear with casts reuniting, plots we are familiar with and a familiar face on TV is very hot at the moment i.e. Will and Grace, Roseanne/Conners , Murphy Brown and more. If Life with Lucy would have aired today I believe it would have been a success. Yes the show would need to be retooled a tad, but Lucy and Gale are spot on their delivery and the show feels fresh and modern, much like the TV shows revived feel today.

I particularly enjoyed Lucy's performance in the pilot, Mother of the Bride and the John Ritter episode. Each had a spark of familiarity such as Lucy getting in the act, Lucy seeking revenge, or just Lucy being ditsy old Lucy. It worked in Life with Lucy just as well as her previous series.

The world of 1986 was a tad different when Hollywood was still cranking out new ideas like Golden Girls and had hot fresh shows like Facts of Life. To the 1986 standard it may have been a little off, or dated.... But today it would work well.

The audience reaction is amazing in scenes . And reminds me of the past where not much editing was done and adds to the performance . If anyone has seen the recent Roseanne reboot, the laughter seems a bit edited and faded.. making the joke deliveries a little harder for me to laugh.

The show needed a little more time to find it's groove... Like any new show, but by today's standards isn't that far off. TvGuide was wrong when they named it the 22nd worst show of all time.

Thoughts... Disagreements????

Gosh we sure need a Lucy on TV today.

How about this, picture it... 1986, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel why didn't she just bring back 'The Lucy Show'? She had Gale Gordon and could've easily coaxed Mary Jane back. Maybe even could've had her Candy Moore and Jimmy back so that she could play the mom/grandmother. Set it back in Danfield if she wants that small home town feel.

OR it could've been 'Here's Lucy' season 7. Have Lucie back as a mom, so that way Lucy Carter can be the Grandmother. Bring in Gale Gordon as Harry Cater. She had every guest star under the moon except Desi. Imagine 1986: the first first episode was Her being taken to a night club for her birthday by her two children Kim & Craig. Meanwhile Harry has to stay back to babysit Kim's children. And WHO is the evenings performer at the club? DESI. Wouldn't it have been special to have had one scene with the four of them in the same room? What a way it could've been to re-introduce Lucy to TV!!!

I always thought her best post-ILL role was in Yours, Mine, and Ours. It was something of a straightman role (except for the drunk scene), but it suited her. She came across as mature and warm. I could have seen her doing a role like that in the 70s - maybe playing a mother/grandmother to an extended family in an hour long comedy/drama a la Eight is Enough.

Another good Lucy movie is "The Facts of Life" (1960) with Bob Hope. Just like Yours, Mine and Ours, it was not your typical Lucy movie and was even nominated for a best screenplay academy award.

Frankly, the show wasn’t very good. Lucy in the 1980’s tried to revive her old formula of her characters of pratfalls and silliness. I don’t say this negatively, this was her act, and it worked brilliantly in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Tastes on television changed.

My question would be WHY she would want to do a new show? Lucy was (and should have been) extremely wealthy from her old shows, her fame, from years of Desilu. She didn’t need to work since she was already very wealthy. Unless she was in financial straights which she wasn’t, why did she do this show unless she just missed the adulation of the audience. She didn’t need the money. Maybe Gale Gordon did, don’t know.

I for one was never a big fan of her’s in the first place. Her first show was groundbreaking. Very professional, multi cameras, this was mostly of Desi’s doing and Jess Oppenheimer. She rode that fame to two other shows in the 1960’s to the early 1970’s. Her second show which lasted I think until 1974 was old fashioned for that time and mostly to older audiences from the 1950’s. Lucy was supposedly inconsolable that the audience passed her by. It is sad to say, but yes it did. Only the elderly watched it and it was a cheap production (Miller/Boyett?) and no was interested, and the show wasn’t good enough to attract an audience. Like I said that sounds cruel but it’s the truth.

But again, a mystery was, Lucy was already super wealthy, why would she do another show? She did it because she missed the fans and the work. It is sad and it is the human condition (and I am in my 50’s and getting older) that you can’t do what you did before.

It’s sad when people become elderly and still want to do what they have always wanted to do, the brain wants to do what the body cannot. That sucks and that’s the human condition. Also that entertainment is very fluid and what one generation likes doesn’t work for the next generation.

I remember watching this when it was on. I was happy to see Gale Gordon & Lucy together again on TV but watching Lucy was sort of painful. No one wants to see an 80 year old woman falling on the floor, taking flying leaps thru the air, & being tossed about by garage doors. It just ain't funny to see very old people doing wild stunts that would normally kill a real old fogie. Lucy apparently didn't see it, I guess she figured what worked once when she was 30 would work again when she's 80.

I really like watching Last of The Summer Wine too about 3 old guys getting into trouble. The show was on british TV for over 30 years, and this show had the same problem. Physical humor that was once funny when they were in their 40's & 50's isn't funny when they're in their 80's & 90's! Literally they had these 80 to 90 year olds in the last 10 years of the show flying off bridges, falling into gulleys, flying off the top of ladders landing in a tree, then falling out of that. It just was once again unfunny and painful to watch these extremely aged men taking 50 foot falls and then they'd just bounce right back up like cartoon characters. Unfunny, each time it happened it looked like a fatal accident right in front of our eyes.:eek:

Lucy wasn't quite 80 when "Life With Lucy" premiered (she was 75), though I agree that it wasn't quite as funny to see her doing the same stunts/slapstick at that age compared to the golden years of "I Love Lucy," "The Lucy Show," etc.

I remember watching this when it was on. I was happy to see Gale Gordon & Lucy together again on TV but watching Lucy was sort of painful. No one wants to see an 80 year old woman falling on the floor, taking flying leaps thru the air, & being tossed about by garage doors. It just ain't funny to see very old people doing wild stunts that would normally kill a real old fogie. Lucy apparently didn't see it, I guess she figured what worked once when she was 30 would work again when she's 80.

I really like watching Last of The Summer Wine too about 3 old guys getting into trouble. The show was on british TV for over 30 years, and this show had the same problem. Physical humor that was once funny when they were in their 40's & 50's isn't funny when they're in their 80's & 90's! Literally they had these 80 to 90 year olds in the last 10 years of the show flying off bridges, falling into gulleys, flying off the top of ladders landing in a tree, then falling out of that. It just was once again unfunny and painful to watch these extremely aged men taking 50 foot falls and then they'd just bounce right back up like cartoon characters. Unfunny, each time it happened it looked like a fatal accident right in front of our eyes.:eek:

I just started to wonder if Life with Lucy (https://herbiejpilato.medium.com/exclusive-life-with-lucy-in-the-80s-deserved-a-better-chance-e0cde033424d) would've marginally been better received (https://jacksonupperco.com/2016/08/03/exonerating-ms-ball-a-look-at-life-with-lucy/) had it come out (https://www.nytimes.com/1986/09/22/arts/tv-reviews-lucille-ball-returns-in-abc-comedy-series.html) a few years or at least a decade or so earlier. Like what if Lucille Ball (https://medium.com/@JonathanTSDM/life-with-lucy-a-look-at-lucille-balls-last-series-33-years-later-7760476b47c7) did something like that (https://insidepulse.com/2019/10/10/dvd-review-life-with-lucy-the-complete-series/) sooner (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:iwZ0r-PslH8J:https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-1986-06-26-8606280642-story.html+&cd=75&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) after her prior sitcom, Here's Lucy wrapped up in 1974 (https://apnews.com/article/547a656e5cfe2d71b3c429e64a1bcdc3)?

Then, you would've theoretically, still had Lucy (https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/life-with-lucy.378730/page-6) in her "prime". Or at the very least, she wasn't exactly at the age (https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/lucille-ball-life-with-lucy-criticism) yet where you would've more obviously feared for her physical safety.

Also, by 1986 (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tc6X8zR0Zz8J:https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1986-09-24-8602270200-story.html+&cd=88&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us), was Lucille Ball's brand (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dkv1YrcPp8QJ:https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-10-03-ca-3870-story.html+&cd=81&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) of comedy still in vogue on prime time network television? Three's Company, which Lucy was a huge fan of, ended its run over two years earlier. And it's spin-off/continuation, Three's a Crowd tried more of a romantic comedy angle instead of being a goofy farce.

Not only that, but the popular sitcoms of the time that predominantly featured older women like The Golden Girls or Who's the Boss? with Katherine Helmond were much more sophisticated and "up with the times". Basically, you didn't see Betty White or Estelle Getty doing pratfalls (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HAJI5n3NuHgJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1986/09/19/lucy-coming-to-life/8d90281a-da72-4650-9cbf-1ffc13f2e2a6/+&cd=89&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) or taking pies to the face on The Golden Girls.

I remember watching this when it was on. I was happy to see Gale Gordon & Lucy together again on TV but watching Lucy was sort of painful. No one wants to see an 80 year old woman falling on the floor, taking flying leaps thru the air, & being tossed about by garage doors. It just ain't funny to see very old people doing wild stunts that would normally kill a real old fogie. Lucy apparently didn't see it, I guess she figured what worked once when she was 30 would work again when she's 80.

I really like watching Last of The Summer Wine too about 3 old guys getting into trouble. The show was on british TV for over 30 years, and this show had the same problem. Physical humor that was once funny when they were in their 40's & 50's isn't funny when they're in their 80's & 90's! Literally they had these 80 to 90 year olds in the last 10 years of the show flying off bridges, falling into gulleys, flying off the top of ladders landing in a tree, then falling out of that. It just was once again unfunny and painful to watch these extremely aged men taking 50 foot falls and then they'd just bounce right back up like cartoon characters. Unfunny, each time it happened it looked like a fatal accident right in front of our eyes.:eek:

Also, by that time (https://web.archive.org/web/20061031151327/http://www.jumptheshark.com/l/lifewithlucy.htm), Lucy's voice (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=375Vl-b-dAs&lc=UgyG3k5y_kWOI9rc5HN4AaABAg) was really off-putting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=375Vl-b-dAs&lc=Ugw4Fmt319884ntwd954AaABAg) due to the toll that her smoking habit took on it. It was no longer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=375Vl-b-dAs&lc=UgzHhGqNEoDkJMlKRFx4AaABAg) the cute, chirpy voice that she had during her I Love Lucy but something very harsh, deep (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=375Vl-b-dAs&lc=UgwWm8-FtdyWI5rQIIl4AaABAg), and raspy (https://www.datalounge.com/thread/14586753-life-with-lucy-).

Stone Pillow

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Pillow
That was a good movie.

The show is okay, nothing brilliant, but not the worst. It does pale in comparison to her earlier shows. My biggest problem is her "family". They are cardboard props to me as there is minimal character development. As much as I admire, respect and love Lucille Ball, her biggest drawback is her need to be the center of attention 90% or more of the show.

As others have pointed out, yes the Saturday night time slot choked any chance of the show developing a following. FoL was the show that my older siblings wanted to watch so there was a debacle as to watch Lucy or the gals on FoL. After 3 or 4 Lucy episodes, FoL had more laughs at the time.

If Lucy was more of a team player, then I think her show could have been developed into an ensemble cast powerhouse type of a show. It could have had a greater blend of witty sophisticated humor that was being developed in the 80s with some of her slapstick comedy that Lucy had done all her life.

The show is okay, nothing brilliant, but not the worst. It does pale in comparison to her earlier shows. My biggest problem is her "family". They are cardboard props to me as there is minimal character development. As much as I admire, respect and love Lucille Ball, her biggest drawback is her need to be the center of attention 90% or more of the show.

As others have pointed out, yes the Saturday night time slot choked any chance of the show developing a following. FoL was the show that my older siblings wanted to watch so there was a debacle as to watch Lucy or the gals on FoL. After 3 or 4 Lucy episodes, FoL had more laughs at the time.

If Lucy was more of a team player, then I think her show could have been developed into an ensemble cast powerhouse type of a show. It could have had a greater blend of witty sophisticated humor that was being developed in the 80s with some of her slapstick comedy that Lucy had done all her life.

Lucy actually was a team player on some Lucy Show and more so on Here's Lucy. Whole episodes revolved on guest stars having the spotlight like Wayne Newton, Carol Burnett, Donny Osmond, Ruth Buzzi, etc... Even her daughter Lucie and occasionally Desi Jr were the focus of the episode. She appreciated new talent and old talent not working much.

Maybe if there were more guest stars like Audrey Meadows and a better supporting cast that could be the center attention would have helped. The show did better with dramedy episodes like Mother of the Bride so they could have made better scripts.

Television Turmoil: Life with Lucy (https://the-avocado.org/2021/12/17/television-turmoil-life-with-lucy/)

Television Turmoil (https://the-avocado.org/2021/12/17/television-turmoil-life-with-lucy/) is a look at the worst and weirdest series to make their way onto the small screen.

Television, especially the sitcom, owes a lot to Lucille Ball. The odds are pretty good that you’ve read a line similar to that many times. Ball’s influence through her 25-year run of shows has become ingrained in the bedrock of most sitcoms. For someone as defining as her, a little cliche might be necessary, especially when the topic of conversation is on her greatest failure.

By the fall of 1986, Lucy hadn’t been a regular presence on TV screens for 12 years, entering a semi-retirement that everyone but her seemed okay with. The runaway success of Bill Cosby’s comeback program, The Cosby Show and positive reception from her dramatic role as a homeless woman in the made-for-TV film, Stone Pillow convinced Ball that a return to the sitcom format was viable. With producer Aaron Spelling on board and full creative control for Ball assured, Life with Lucy (https://web.archive.org/web/20061031125326/http://www.jumptheshark.com/l/lifewithlucy.htm) went into production.

Like her previous shows, Ball played another Lucy, Lucille Barker, a widowed grandmother who inherited her husband’s interest in a hardware store. Lucy insists on helping with the store, owned by her late husband’s uptight business partner, Curtis McGibbon (long time Lucy scene partner, Gale Gordon). In addition to being business partners, the duo are also in-laws with Lucy’s daughter, Margo (Ann Dusenberry) being married to Curtis’ son, Ted (Larry Anderson). But wait, there’s more! In one of the more convoluted set-ups for a family sitcom, they all live together along with the grandchildren, Kevin and Becky (Phillip J. Amelio II and a young Jenny Lewis respectively). We never get a sense of the size of the house, but we can assume the living situation is a nightmare.

https://i0.wp.com/the-avocado.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Turmoil4-1.jpg?resize=768%2C517&ssl=1

ABC and the producers involved believed that Life with Lucy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_with_Lucy) would be a huge hit and ordered the show into production before shooting the pilot. With no test screenings and zero network interference, Ball was free to create the show she wanted. Ball hired her long time writers, Bob Carroll Jr and Madelyn Davis, along with various crew members she had worked with since the days of I Love Lucy. The intent was to make Life with Lucy (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Life+with+Lucy%22+1986+ABC&sxsrf=APwXEdeio-Wjto62g_vD7s5aRjLaN01XnQ%3A1686895488074&ei=gPuLZMOVBPiHwbkPi4ScwAw&ved=0ahUKEwjD1duyj8f_AhX4QzABHQsCB8gQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22Life+with+Lucy%22+1986+ABC&gs_lcp=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-LAWCejgFoAXABeACAAckEiAGVQpIBDDAuNS4xMi40LjYuMZgBAKABAbABFLgBAsABAdoBBggBEAEYCw&sclient=gws-wiz-serp) just like her old programs and that was exactly what we got.

The major problem with this strategy was that the entire landscape of television had changed in the time between the last Lucy show and this new attempt. Trying to make a show with a similar feel to 60s sitcoms would never play with audiences in the 80s. Some trappings of the modern sitcom were there with Lucy’s family, but the center of attention was firmly on Ball and Gordon’s antics, to the point where most of the family would be lucky to get more than a scene in each episode.

As great as Ball’s material was in the 50s and 60s, it had become old hat by the time Life with Lucy debuted. Lucille may have been off the screen for 12 years, but Lucy never left. Most of the audience had been exposed to reruns of her shows by that point and nothing on this new program could compare. The stale writing and tired jokes likely didn’t help matters.

The reviews at the time were savage, specifically toward Ball herself. With that classic blend of sexism and agism, critics blamed audiences’ lack of interest on the 75-year-old Lucille. “At her age, the audience was more worried about her safety than her pratfalls,” Aaron Spelling remarked in a 1999 interview (https://interviews.televisionacademy.com/interviews/aaron-spelling#). Which feels like an obvious load of crap. While Ball and Gordon certainly looked older than the last time they were on screen, none of their comedic timing or joke delivery had vanished. Ball was still more than capable of the occasional physical bit and Gordon infamously never flubbed a line during the 13-episode run. The problem was never the lead performers.

https://i0.wp.com/the-avocado.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Turmoil2.jpg?w=676&ssl=1

In that same interview, Spelling lays out the actual problem. Ball had offered to try something different if Spelling believed it would be best. He insisted her ideas were more likely to succeed and Life with Lucy went forward as planned. The series ran for 8 episodes before being cancelled, with 5 other episodes never making air. It was the first time a Lucy program had been canned. The show’s failure and the harsh reviews it received devastated Ball. She made only a few public appearances before passing away in 1989.

While it seems like a sad end to a legendary career. Life with Lucy has become a footnote in biographies and stories about Lucille Ball. It exists today mostly as an odd curiosity. A program that fails by playing it safe and giving the audience something they knew too well. All together, Lucille Ball starred in 506 episodes of television, a legacy that far outweighs a crummy comeback attempt.

rXar3egYByk

Most people don't know that Lucy had a comeback series in 1986 called Life With Lucy. Sadly, it didn't go well. Find out what happened.

She could have also played a supporting role in a drama.

This presentation covers the issue pretty well although I don't agree with the assessment of Gale Gordon. He hadn't worked in years and at age 80 seemed much less effective working off Lucy's antics than he had been in her prior efforts. This had trainwreck written all over it, her last series (Here's Lucy) was so dated when it was being done that anything that looked remotely like it was going to be an embarrassment for all involved.

rXar3egYByk

Life With Lucy (1986) - What went wrong (https://www.datalounge.com/thread/33389755--life-with-lucy-1986-)?

1. Lucy had too much control - She'd been out of the game for 12 years at that point, and no longer had any idea what the public wanted.

2. She hired her old writers - Bob Carroll and Madeleine Pugh were brought in as producers. Big mistake. Lucy was a fan of The Golden Girls, but she thought "That's not what the public wants from me." She was likely right. But neither did writers pushing 70 really know.

3. The children - They were smart to do away with Lucy and Viv's kids on The Lucy Show. Somehow, the little kids on Life with Lucy presence it too goodie goodie. Seriously, Life with Lucy made Here's Lucy seem edgy by comparison.

4. The supporting cast - It's like they cast two giant pieces of Wonder Bread to play Lucy's son and daughter in law. Two less memorable actors I can't fathom. And don't get me started on a mugging, 75 year old Gale Gordon.

In all of this there is no mention of Mr. Lucille Ball, Gary Morton. A second rate journeyman comic with a razor thin resume outside of Ball related projects, exactly what did he bring to the table. He was a producer for the last wo seasons of The Lucy Show creatively the worse two seasons of the series, all six seasons of Here's Lucy, a show dated before its time, and an Executive Producer of Life With Lucy. Every facet of this was ill-conceived, the casting, the writers, the premise, couldn't he as a producer go to Lucy and tell her the truth. Did he even know how bad the show looked as it started to come together.

Lucy was inspired to come back because of the The Golden Girls, the TV audience loved that series, couldn't Lucy or Gary as the "talent" putting the series together see why Lucy liked The Golden Girls, why it was a hit, how could you turn something out as bad as Life With Lucy.

It was just a rotten show. Terrible in every way.

That would have been a great lineup. And here's an irony about Who's the Boss? and that time slot. In the 1990-91 season, Who's the Boss? was ranked #19 in the ratings. Pretty solid. Then for the 1991-92 season, ABC moved Who's the Boss? to Life with Lucy's old time slot where, like every other show ABC put in that time slot, it dropped like a rock to 76th place. That time slot was obviously death row for any show on ABC.

Yes, I've seen that Joan Rivers interview you mention (it's on Youtube). When Lucy talked about the reviews making her cry, I'm sure this one by some Bill Anderson guy must have been one of the ones she was referring to, which was published a month-and-a-half before the debut of Life with Lucy. I can remember reading this at the time and was shocked anyone would write such a thing, much less publish it. This was before anyone had even seen the show. It was just downright cruel.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ZohWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=U0ENAAAAIBAJ&pg=5235,2035727&dq=lucille+ball+pathetic&hl=en

But the reporter was right.

This presentation covers the issue pretty well although I don't agree with the assessment of Gale Gordon. He hadn't worked in years and at age 80 seemed much less effective working off Lucy's antics than he had been in her prior efforts. This had trainwreck written all over it, her last series (Here's Lucy) was so dated when it was being done that anything that looked remotely like it was going to be an embarrassment for all involved.

Somebody on r/television (https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/1h4ipcn/comment/m03dz08/) even pointed out that all of Lucille Ball's sitcoms that came after I Love Lucy, including Life with Lucy, felt like they were stuck in the 1950s. Here's Lucy was running on CBS the same time that The Mary Tyler Moore Show, All in the Family, and even Good Times. So what Lucille Ball was doing back in 1974, already felt a bit out of step and behind the times with where American sitcoms were otherwise going.

7BLI4clY4uM

This Rick Nineg video analyzes six reasons why "Life with Lucy" failed. It explores the challenges of adapting Lucille Ball's comedic style for a new era, including the use of cue cards and physical comedy at an advanced age. The show's production faced internal conflicts and formulaic struggles.