Does anybody know? I read an article that stated that Randall, at the start of the 1980 fall tv season, starred in a new sitcom about the Vietnam War.

http://jimsmarios.tripod.com/images/cast/randall.jpg

He was let go by the producers at the end of the first season. Not because of poor acting or any personal issues on the set, it's just the writers simply didn't know what to do with his character. The character was bland and not very defined and it became hard for the writers to come up with things for it.

Randall Carver understood and didn't take the firing personally, according to Marley Brant's interview with him in her book Happier Days: Paramount Television's Classic Sitcoms 1974-1984 .

I'm sure at the time, he was disappointed to lose his job, but seemed in retrospect to philosophically take it in stride.

He was let go by the producers at the end of the first season. Not because of poor acting or any personal issues on the set, it's just the writers simply didn't know what to do with his character. The character was bland and not very defined and it became hard for the writers to come up with things for it.

Randall Carver understood and didn't take the firing personally, according to Marley Brant's interview with him in her book Happier Days: Paramount Television's Classic Sitcoms 1974-1984 .

I'm sure at the time, he was disappointed to lose his job, but seemed in retrospect to philosophically take it in stride.


Excellent post! Thanks for the heads up! I agree, Randall Carver did play a very bland & boring character.

Excellent post! Thanks for the heads up! I agree, Randall Carver did play a very bland & boring character.

In Marley Brant's book, the writers and producers go out of their way to acknowledge that it was they who fumbled the ball and couldn't come up with anything for the character. Carver is regarded by all as a nice guy and a professional.

It's just a shame he was unable to find success on another show...or even able to make the S1 DVD cover!!! But I agree that Mr. Carver seems to be a very nice and professional fellow. Not everyone in his position would be as well-adjusted as he seems to be.

I'm in the minority who liked the John Burns character. However, I'm still glad he left so that Jim could come. Jim was far better.

I liked following John's life. He came to New York City, got a job as a cabbie. Shortly thereafter, he met and married a woman, Suzanne. They had some money troubles. He wrecked Cab 804 and was gone without explanation.

I think John Burns was just too normal for the show. Maybe the creators/writers/producers figured they already had two normal characters in Alex and Elaine and didn't need any more. Who knows?

He was let go by the producers at the end of the first season. Not because of poor acting or any personal issues on the set, it's just the writers simply didn't know what to do with his character. The character was bland and not very defined and it became hard for the writers to come up with things for it.

Randall Carver understood and didn't take the firing personally, according to Marley Brant's interview with him in her book Happier Days: Paramount Television's Classic Sitcoms 1974-1984 .

I'm sure at the time, he was disappointed to lose his job, but seemed in retrospect to philosophically take it in stride.

Indeed, in the many instances in which the writers tried writing material for John Burns, they often instead found themselves giving the material to Tony Banta.

I think John Burns was just too normal for the show. Maybe the creators/writers/producers figured they already had two normal characters in Alex and Elaine and didn't need any more. Who knows?

I think that's valid. I can't imagine Taxi without Reverend Jim.