No doubt about it, All in the Family was a fantastic sitcom/dramedy. However, we all know that the show overstayed its welcome. Who is to blame for All in the Family "jumping the shark?" When, if at all did it jump?

Was it CBS' fault, Norman Lear, Carroll O'Connor, the writers??? Who is to blame?

http://friday87central.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/allinthefamily1.jpg?w=545

I don't think All In The Family ever jumped the shark. While the last year of the show without Mike and Gloria was not as good, it was still watchable.

Now, I do think that the Archie character may have stayed on the air too long. While Archie Bunker's Place wasn't a bad show, it was never as good or great as AITF.

It retrospect, AITF probably should have ended when Mike and Gloria left. Too much of the show was built around the conflicts between Mike and Archie and without that, the show was somewhat lacking.

I don't think All In The Family ever jumped the shark. While the last year of the show without Mike and Gloria was not as good, it was still watchable.

Now, I do think that the Archie character may have stayed on the air too long. While Archie Bunker's Place wasn't a bad show, it was never as good or great as AITF.

It retrospect, AITF probably should have ended when Mike and Gloria left. Too much of the show was built around the conflicts between Mike and Archie and without that, the show was somewhat lacking.


Exactly my point Doc, was it CBS wanting to milk the Archie character for everything it was worth or perhaps Carroll O'Connor for wanting things his way all the time?

The show was still watchable I will agree on that, but definitely not up to the standards of what we were accustomed to.

I'm still glad that they continued AITF after Mike & Gloria left. It's true the show was never as great as it once was but it was still a good show. I can see why fans didn't like it. Killing Edith off and breaking up Mike & Gloria didn't help. The only thing I wish was that ABP had a chance for a true final episode so Archie could have went out in style.

I'm still glad that they continued AITF after Mike & Gloria left. It's true the show was never as great as it once was but it was still a good show. I can see why fans didn't like it. Killing Edith off and breaking up Mike & Gloria didn't help. The only thing I wish was that ABP had a chance for a true final episode so Archie could have went out in style.


So true Sonny an every point! The writers did a bang up job of never giving the show a proper farewell. You could also forget a reunion show like so many they did back in the 80's because Edith was dead and Mike and Gloria were no longer a married couple. lol

So true Sonny an every point! The writers did a bang up job of never giving the show a proper farewell. You could also forget a reunion show like so many they did back in the 80's because Edith was dead and Mike and Gloria were no longer a married couple. lol

Whoever decided to go along with the idea of continuing the show after Mike and Gloria left is guilty of, if not 'ruining' it, seriously compromising it's legacy. The show was very bland and weak after the kids left, and after Edith died, it really got worse. Sure there was the charisma of O'Connor to carry it along, but I just couldn't get into it at that point, no matter how hard I tried. There was so little real conflict, and the supporting characters were so weak it just kind of sat there and whimpered.

As for a reunion show, they could have done one after Edith died, with the kids reconciling and coming back from CA to help Archie in his golden years after he'd sold the bar and retired, maybe with a physical ailment. Mike could have been on the local city council,, Gloria might have done some daycare or worked at Joey's school (assuming this was in the 80's to 90's), Stephanie could have lived at home, fixing up the basement or something. And Edith could have been referenced a lot. As it is, with Carroll O'Connor gone, they've lost even that chance. :(

If there were a reunion, it would not have been in the 90's. By then, the house was sold to the african-american family, the Cumberbatches.

Like in real life, children move away and parents are left on their own. Continuing on after Mike and Gloria left is just another way of showing a realism that AITF had. However, bringing in Stephanie was, in my opinion, a big mistake. I do not have an idea of what a proper concept could have been, but focusing on the Archie and Edith relationship instead of having them raise a child - again - was not my cup of tea. But it is what it is, and we still have some fabulous shows to watch anytime we want. Those were the days ....

Well, I will say this. Stephanie was great insurance to have to prop Archie in the later years when everyone else left the house. So that panned out ok.

I forgot about the house being spun off LOL

I don't think All In The Family ever jumped the shark. While the last year of the show without Mike and Gloria was not as good, it was still watchable.

Now, I do think that the Archie character may have stayed on the air too long. While Archie Bunker's Place wasn't a bad show, it was never as good or great as AITF.

It retrospect, AITF probably should have ended when Mike and Gloria left. Too much of the show was built around the conflicts between Mike and Archie and without that, the show was somewhat lacking.

I think you expressed it well.

adding stephanie was the biggest mistake of the series

adding stephanie was the biggest mistake of the series

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

This is so, so true! The 9th season just feels as if they were stretching the show to have something to watch.

Between Stephanie and the lack of taping in front of an audience, AITF lost its magic (and timing for that matter).

Is it just me, but in the later episodes with the lack of audience does O'Connor and Stapleton seem almost reserved in their acting as the Bunkers? I've always thought that the characters seem to be missing their "edge" if that is a good word to use to describe it.

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

This is so, so true! The 9th season just feels as if they were stretching the show to have something to watch.

Between Stephanie and the lack of taping in front of an audience, AITF lost its magic (and timing for that matter).

Is it just me, but in the later episodes with the lack of audience does O'Connor and Stapleton seem almost reserved in their acting as the Bunkers? I've always thought that the characters seem to be missing their "edge" if that is a good word to use to describe it.

They had to lose their edge because of the little kid

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

This is so, so true! The 9th season just feels as if they were stretching the show to have something to watch.

Between Stephanie and the lack of taping in front of an audience, AITF lost its magic (and timing for that matter).

Is it just me, but in the later episodes with the lack of audience does O'Connor and Stapleton seem almost reserved in their acting as the Bunkers? I've always thought that the characters seem to be missing their "edge" if that is a good word to use to describe it.

Acting in front of a live audience requires a different technique: You have to "play to the back rows." Ever notice that shows filmed before live audiences tend to be louder? That's because the actors are playing more broadly and there are three cameras there to cover all the filming angles.

I always thought it was weird when you heard Carroll O' Connor say: "All In the Family was played for a studio audience for live responses." Sort of like a live laugh track.

Acting in front of a live audience requires a different technique: You have to "play to the back rows." Ever notice that shows filmed before live audiences tend to be louder? That's because the actors are playing more broadly and there are three cameras there to cover all the filming angles.

I always thought it was weird when you heard Carroll O' Connor say: "All In the Family was played for a studio audience for live responses." Sort of like a live laugh track.


I just tend to think that the shows performed with the audience and the actors playing the parts "to the back" just are so much better. In fact, with the "quiet, gentler Bunkers" I tend to find some of these shows boring.

I have nothing against the 9th season, I am happy there are more seasons to enjoy, I just think the loss of Reiner and Struthers, the addition of Stephanie, taped in a cold studio just present a blah season. The show was just so groundbreaking and special when it started, and by the time it ended and went into Archie Bunker's Place it had become just another TV series.

For me, it's hard to watch AitF in reruns sometimes, knowing that Mike would eventually desert Gloria. I remember one episode in particular in the 7th or 8th season where they went off for a weekend together, trying to patch up their differences, but in the long run, it all ended up being for naught.

Back in the early 1990s there was a reunion special (it did get a VHS release but not sure if it has appeared on any of the DVD season sets as an extra).

Both Carroll O'Connor and Jean Stapleton were ready to call it quits when Rob Reiner and Sally Strothers left, however, before that season ended, CBS offered O'Connor and Stapleton a HUGE salary increase to do 2 more seasons.

It was only after Stapleton wanted to be on the show less and less (and explaining Edith's constant absenses had become tiresome for the writers) that Norman Lear stepped in and decided that since Stapleton wanted to leave for good, that would be a great stopping point for the show.

It was CBS who still wanted O'Connor to continue.

In my opinion, the show became garbage when Joey was brought into it. It was still watchable when Mike and Gloria moved out, but Joey episodes and beyond were brutal.

Terribly written, ultra-slow paced, terribly acted, and pretentious camera zooms.

I just tend to think that the shows performed with the audience and the actors playing the parts "to the back" just are so much better. In fact, with the "quiet, gentler Bunkers" I tend to find some of these shows boring.

That makes sense, because you're used to the show being before a live audience. That's the way the show was for most of its' run.

On the other hand there are people who feel the same about Happy Days, but in reverse. The first two seasons were done single camera style in the studio, but switched to a multi-camera/live audience setup from season 3 forward.

For me, it's hard to watch AitF in reruns sometimes, knowing that Mike would eventually desert Gloria. I remember one episode in particular in the 7th or 8th season where they went off for a weekend together, trying to patch up their differences, but in the long run, in all ended up being for naught.

Yeah, break the hearts of millions of viewers who have followed the couple and their struggles for years, all to "free up" Gloria for a series that lasted, what, six episodes?

What a slap in the face of long time fans, who deserved a happy ending for Mike and Gloria. :mad:

Yeah, break the hearts of millions of viewers who have followed the couple and their struggles for years, all to "free up" Gloria for a series that lasted, what, six episodes?

What a slap in the face of long time fans, who deserved a happy ending for Mike and Gloria. :mad:

And you'll notice that Archie never appeared in any of the Gloria episodes once she moved away with Joey.

And on top of that, they cancelled Archie Bunker's Place the same season!

I agree with Danielle Brisebois, who once said that ABP should have at least been allowed a farewell episode.

And you'll notice that Archie never appeared in any of the Gloria episodes once she moved away with Joey.

And on top of that, they cancelled Archie Bunker's Place the same season!

I agree with Danielle Brisebois, who once said that ABP should have at least been allowed a farewell episode.


I think he only appeared in a unaired pilot for Gloria

I have always found Norman Lear's shows to be too urban and depressing, but I'll watch All In The Family on occasion as it's Lear's crowning achievement. But I much prefer sitcoms from the 60's, that was the decade for sitcoms in my opinion.

As far as All In The Family overstaying it's welcome, I don't think it did it just had some changes along the way, then the series morphed into Archie Bunkers Place where it ran a few more seasons.

I have always found Norman Lear's shows to be too urban and depressing, but I'll watch All In The Family on occasion as it's Lear's crowning achievement. But I much prefer sitcoms from the 60's, that was the decade for sitcoms in my opinion.

As far as All In The Family overstaying it's welcome, I don't think it did it just had some changes along the way, then the series morphed into Archie Bunkers Place where it ran a few more seasons.


These two Norman Lear Sitcoms were not Urban or Depressing

Gloria
Jeffersons

These two Norman Lear Sitcoms were not Urban or Depressing

Gloria
Jeffersons

The Jeffersons is urban, but the subject matter in the episodes might be more lighthearted than All In The Family is. Some episodes of All In The Family contain serious subject matter, those episodes are the depressing ones.

The Jeffersons is urban, but the subject matter in the episodes might be more lighthearted than All In The Family is. Some episodes of All In The Family contain serious subject matter, those episodes are the depressing ones.


You right, The Jeffersons and Gloria were the only Lear shows that did not have serious subjects matter

You right, The Jeffersons and Gloria were the only Lear shows that did not have serious subjects matter


What about when George got stabbed?

What about when George got stabbed?


That was just a serious ending not a serious episode topic

That was just a serious ending not a serious episode topic

Ok, then what about the serial killer trying to kill Louise?

Ok, then what about the serial killer trying to kill Louise?


That episode, the KKK episode, and the episode when Florence wanted to kill herself I think are the only serious episodes of the show

That episode, the KKK episode, and the episode when Florence wanted to kill herself I think are the only serious episodes of the show

I did forget about the KKK episode and have no idea about Florence wanting to commit suicide.

I did forget about the KKK episode and have no idea about Florence wanting to commit suicide.


Yeah Florence wanting to kill herself was a season 3 episode. It was serious until George said...."If you want to kill yourself go right ahead"

LOL

Yeah Florence wanting to kill herself was a season 3 episode. It was serious until George said...."If you want to kill yourself go right ahead"

LOL

I thought he said "If you mess up my bathroom I'll kill you!". Either way, I remember the audience laughed at the line, and it probably helped break the tension a bit.

I thought he said "If you mess up my bathroom I'll kill you!". Either way, I remember the audience laughed at the line, and it probably helped break the tension a bit.


He said that after she came out of the bathroom. His statement was half funny and then it ended in a serious way

"If you want to kill yourself you go right ahead, but you will be hurting someone who cares a lot about you."

He was talking about Louise. The audience laugh at the first part and then became emotional at the last part

Maude wasn't urban.

Maude wasn't urban.


I think it was, she was closed enough to the city

When they stopped taping in front of a live audience and it no longer became about social relevance. In later years, they would do cheap sight gags and goofy one-liners. That just wasn't what the show was about initially. You can't change the format of show like that at any point. Frankly, I never understood how "Archie Bunker's Place" ran as long as it did. Without an audience, it was soooooooooooo sssssssslllllllllooooooowwwwwwwww.......:eek:

When they stopped taping in front of a live audience and it no longer became about social relevance. In later years, they would do cheap sight gags and goofy one-liners. That just wasn't what the show was about initially. You can't change the format of show like that at any point. Frankly, I never understood how "Archie Bunker's Place" ran as long as it did. Without an audience, it was soooooooooooo sssssssslllllllllooooooowwwwwwwww.......:eek:


I think the Move of Mike and Gloria next door helped contribute to the decline

I think we're being too generous with AITF. The first four seasons were great, no doubt. But something happened after that. I think the directing went south big time. Instead of the show moving at a rapid clip, we started getting lots of mugging from the actors, and unnecessary facial close-ups. Everything just seemed to slow to a crawl. The fifth season decline was a little noticeable, and drastic after the sixth. Archie Bunker's Place wasnt even the same show, totally unwatchable.

Back in the early 1990s there was a reunion special (it did get a VHS release but not sure if it has appeared on any of the DVD season sets as an extra).

Both Carroll O'Connor and Jean Stapleton were ready to call it quits when Rob Reiner and Sally Strothers left, however, before that season ended, CBS offered O'Connor and Stapleton a HUGE salary increase to do 2 more seasons.

It was only after Stapleton wanted to be on the show less and less (and explaining Edith's constant absenses had become tiresome for the writers) that Norman Lear stepped in and decided that since Stapleton wanted to leave for good, that would be a great stopping point for the show.

It was CBS who still wanted O'Connor to continue.

Owning all 9 seasons on DVD, I can confirm that the 20th Anniversary Special from 1991 has NOT been released on DVD.

It is available for viewing on YouTube though.

i love this show true classic was intresting right to the 9th season did not care for that season to much without mike n Gloria it just not the same

I think it was, she was closed enough to the city

(interesting thread-sorry I missed it until now)

Yes it was urban - Tuckahoe is roughly 15 miles from monolithic NYC. It's a suburb you can get do on a Metro North commuter train. I suppose someone could try to make the case that the show was suburban, but given that many eps had a character who came in from NYC, or referred to NYC, I'd classify it as urban too.

So who/what caused AITF (and its clone ABP) to jump the shark? IMO, it was a combination of things. First, Jean Stapleton leaving. She and Carroll were each like 40% of the show. The "show(s)" was never the same to me once Edith was "killed" off. Also, the Jeffersons leaving. Archie was also too mellowed out for my taste. I think the writing fell off as well. Add these together and you get an eroding show.

Pity they didnn't just go off the air on a high note like The Mary Tyler Moore Show. But in its heyday, AITF was magnificent.

So who/what caused AITF (and its clone ABP) to jump the shark? IMO, it was a combination of things. First, Jean Stapleton leaving. She and Carroll were each like 40% of the show. The "show(s)" was never the same to me once Edith was "killed" off. Also, the Jeffersons leaving. Archie was also too mellowed out for my taste. I think the writing fell off as well. Add these together and you get an eroding show.

Pity they didnn't just go off the air on a high note like The Mary Tyler Moore Show. But in its heyday, AITF was magnificent.


Edith being killed off was after AITF.

Edith being killed off was after AITF.

Oh Nuts! did point out their opinion by saying "AITF (and its clone ABP)."

I still say when Mort Lachman came onboard, as well as John Rich no longer directing, the show's entire feel changed. The early episodes always had a feeling like you were looking in and spying on the Bunker household, witnessing what was happening first hand. After about season 6 or 7 something in the entire series changed, and it was never as great as the first few years.

Let's face it, after a certain amount of years, all shows run out of gas creatively.

There are only so many situations you can put the characters into, only so many fresh takes on the material that can be found.

By season 9, two key characters were gone and you had an aging show.

I'm sure the writers made their best efforts, but there's only so much you can do with characters after a while.

You right, The Jeffersons and Gloria were the only Lear shows that did not have serious subjects matter

What about Sanford and Son?

I cannot really think of very many eps. that had drastic serious subjects matters on that series.

But back to AitF. The 1st 5-6 seasons were dynamic. Then S7-S8 rolled into town not AitF was already no longer the #1 show and CBS was no longer the #1 network on TV due to ABC's surging dominance w/ Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley (despite AitF still ranking in the Top of Nielsens) and the writing took a hit somewhere along the lines and I don't know it if it's me but IMO, I think Mike became slightly less of a foil to Archie and started being less of the hippie-like liberal he was in the 1st 5-6 seasons to the point that he sometimes would really alienate Gloria.

Then S9 rolled along and gone was Mike and Gloria, in was Stephanie. Despite those changes, AitF was still in the Top of the Nielsens.

Now once ABP came along, the 1st season did reasonably well. Then S2 came, and gone was Edith and despite the lost of Edith and the series not getting its proper finale, ABP somehow still ranked in the Top 25 of the Nielsens.

As for who killed AitF, I'd have to say it's more of CBS's doing for overmilking Archie.

What about Sanford and Son?

I cannot really think of very many eps. that had drastic serious subjects matters on that series.

But back to AitF. The 1st 5-6 seasons were dynamic. Then S7-S8 rolled into town not AitF was already no longer the #1 show and CBS was no longer the #1 network on TV due to ABC's surging dominance w/ Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley (despite AitF still ranking in the Top of Nielsens) and the writing took a hit somewhere along the lines and I don't know it if it's me but IMO, I think Mike became slightly less of a foil to Archie and started being less of the hippie-like liberal he was in the 1st 5-6 seasons to the point that he sometimes would really alienate Gloria.

Then S9 rolled along and gone was Mike and Gloria, in was Stephanie. Despite those changes, AitF was still in the Top of the Nielsens.

Now once ABP came along, the 1st season did reasonably well. Then S2 came, and gone was Edith and despite the lost of Edith and the series not getting its proper finale, ABP somehow still ranked in the Top 25 of the Nielsens.

As for who killed AitF, I'd have to say it's more of CBS's doing for overmilking Archie.



Never any serious topics on Sanford and Son

Yeah, I was going to mention S&S - I don't remember ANY "a very special..." episodes on that show. Good!!!

To get back to AITF, I think it just simply ran its course. That's what happens to many shows that run that long.

Looking back at AITF there is definitely a point where the pushing of a liberal agenda was clearly the primary focus of the creative team and having it be funny was secondary. Fortunately they had the writers and actors to pull it off without losing the laughs.

It was O'Connor, who for some reason, believed it was "The Carroll O'Connor Show" as opposed to "All in the Family". He and Norman Lear got into a power struggle in the mid-1970s, and O'Connor always went straight to CBS to "get his way" when Lear said "No, Carroll, the show is an ensemble, you are not the only star."

O'Connor made several major mistakes that ultimately caused the show to loose traction. First, somewhere around 1976 or 1977, it was O'Connor's idea not to tape the show in front of a live audience. This greatly affected the pacing of the show. Second, O'Connor wanted to "tone down" Archie's bigotry and racism. He wanted to portray a totally different side of Archie Bunker which in my opinion, fell horribly flat. In later seasons, O'Connor practically mumbled his dialogue, and the addition of unnecessary and really unlikable characters started to ruin the show. What was once a great sitcom really dragged horribly with the change of characters, no live audience, unlikable characters and the switch of "Archie Bunker's Place" was really bad. I couldn't believe that show lasted as long as it did.

It was O'Connor, who for some reason, believed it was "The Carroll O'Connor Show" as opposed to "All in the Family". He and Norman Lear got into a power struggle in the mid-1970s, and O'Connor always went straight to CBS to "get his way" when Lear said "No, Carroll, the show is an ensemble, you are not the only star."

O'Connor made several major mistakes that ultimately caused the show to loose traction. First, somewhere around 1976 or 1977, it was O'Connor's idea not to tape the show in front of a live audience. This greatly affected the pacing of the show. Second, O'Connor wanted to "tone down" Archie's bigotry and racism. He wanted to portray a totally different side of Archie Bunker which in my opinion, fell horribly flat. In later seasons, O'Connor practically mumbled his dialogue, and the addition of unnecessary and really unlikable characters started to ruin the show. What was once a great sitcom really dragged horribly with the change of characters, no live audience, unlikable characters and the switch of "Archie Bunker's Place" was really bad. I couldn't believe that show lasted as long as it did.


That is inaccurate information because in the episode when Mike and Gloria go west in 1978, it was clearly filmed in front of a studio audience

By that point, All in the Family was taped in a "cold studio", meaning no live audience. The episode was then screened before the live audience of a "One Day at a Time" taping to get the audience responses. I know because I know someone who was there. :)

By that point, All in the Family was taped in a "cold studio", meaning no live audience. The episode was then screened before the live audience of a "One Day at a Time" taping to get the audience responses. I know because I know someone who was there. :)


If you keep posting false information I will report you to the administrator

Works both ways. If you want to harass, I can do the same thing.

Works both ways. If you want to harass, I can do the same thing.


You cannot post info as fact without a source. So stop doing it and breaking the rules

You cannot post info as fact without a source. So stop doing it and breaking the rules
You give SitcomsOnline a bad name. You've clearly been on this site far too long and posting way too much and don't know half of what you think you do. I just joined this site and don't appreciate the harassment, but I will let those I know who work in the industry that this site is bogus ran by people who think they know it all but know nothing. I've reported you (but you probably run it) but I won't be visiting such a useless site again.

You give SitcomsOnline a bad name. You've clearly been on this site far too long and posting way too much and don't know half of what you think you do. I just joined this site and don't appreciate the harassment, but I will let those I know who work in the industry that this site is bogus ran by people who think they know it all but know nothing. I've reported you (but you probably run it) but I won't be visiting such a useless site again.


If you post a source then you are fine. If not, then you come off as trolling

Like in real life, children move away and parents are left on their own. Continuing on after Mike and Gloria left is just another way of showing a realism that AITF had. However, bringing in Stephanie was, in my opinion, a big mistake. I do not have an idea of what a proper concept could have been, but focusing on the Archie and Edith relationship instead of having them raise a child - again - was not my cup of tea.

I agree. I think they were trying too hard to bring something totally fresh to the show -- Stephanie -- that they completely lost sight of what had made the show work in the first place, which was the conflict between Archie and Mike. Perhaps it would have been wiser to have looked for a newer, but similar character. The idea that immediately pops in mind is a strong, Maude-like, female character. The Maude-Archie set up in that early episode featuring Bea Arthur was great. They could have come up with another relative of Edith's -- perhaps an elderly, liberal aunt, who is in need of a home and someone to look after her, so Edith offers up Mike and Gloria's room to her. Then the sparks fly. But the direction they actually went with the show, and with Archie Bunker's Place afterward, as others have commented, just fell flat. Personally, I think Archie Bunker's Place was a terrible show. I watched it during its original run and I watched All in the Family in the years before that. I loved All in the Family but I found Archie Bunker's Place a complete bore. When ABC moved Mork and Mindy up against ABP, I went with M&M. Not that M&M was such a great show, but compared to ABP, it was hysterical.

That is inaccurate information because in the episode when Mike and Gloria go west in 1978, it was clearly filmed in front of a studio audience

Actually, what lucy&vivfan wrote is entirely inaccurate. I'm not sure exactly what point it happened, but production in later years certainly did transition to the "cold studio" method of taping the show, just like lucy&vivfan explained. Also, I have a feeling I know how lucy&vivfan is, and if my hunch is correct, this is someone who has been around the television business for longer than you've been alive, and he knows exactly what he's talking about.

Actually, what lucy&vivfan wrote is entirely inaccurate. I'm not sure exactly what point it happened, but production in later years certainly did transition to the "cold studio" method of taping the show, just like lucy&vivfan explained. Also, I have a feeling I know how lucy&vivfan is, and if my hunch is correct, this is someone who has been around the television business for longer than you've been alive, and he knows exactly what he's talking about.


They been around the television business? Proof?

They been around the television business? Proof?

I don't need to prove anything to you. If lucy&vivfan is who I think he is, then I know exactly how long he's been in the television business and I know the kind of work he does and some people he's worked with, including some very huge stars. The only way I can prove that to you is to publicly divulge who this person is, and obviously I'm not going to do that. I also know from some things you have posted that you're fairly young and it's perfectly safe to say this person has been working in the television industry longer than you've been on the planet. Further, I know the comment lucy&vivfan posted about AITF using the cold audience technique to be true. I have a book on AITF and they explain the whole thing there. If you want proof of that, then go read the book. Or else YOU prove that what you're saying is true (which I know you can't do because evidence of what you're saying does not exist). Frankly, I think you just like to argue because I constantly see you arguing with people on these boards. And a little piece of advice: change your screen name. It doesn't fit.

I don't need to prove anything to you. If lucy&vivfan is who I think he is, then I know exactly how long he's been in the television business and I know the kind of work he does and some people he's worked with, including some very huge stars. The only way I can prove that to you is to publicly divulge who this person is, and obviously I'm not going to do that. I also know from some things you have posted that you're fairly young and it's perfectly safe to say this person has been working in the television industry longer than you've been on the planet. Further, I know the comment lucy&vivfan posted about AITF using the cold audience technique to be true. I have a book on AITF and they explain the whole thing there. If you want proof of that, then go read the book. Or else YOU prove that what you're saying is true (which I know you can't do because evidence of what you're saying does not exist). Frankly, I think you just like to argue because I constantly see you arguing with people on these boards. And a little piece of advice: change your screen name. It doesn't fit.


Shut up

Looking back at AITF there is definitely a point where the pushing of a liberal agenda was clearly the primary focus of the creative team and having it be funny was secondary. Fortunately they had the writers and actors to pull it off without losing the laughs.
That was such a fine line and it's amazing that they pulled it off. My grandparents, who were staunch Conservatives and Nixon supporters, loved this show.

That was such a fine line and it's amazing that they pulled it off. My grandparents, who were staunch Conservatives and Nixon supporters, loved this show.


I always find it interesting that shows like AITF and M*A*S*H which were clearly liberal in their content and point of view, appealed greatly to both liberals and conservatives.

And even AITF, which sprung from Norman Lear's liberal perspective, was not above doing shows that showed that Mike ("The Meathead") could be just as full of himself as Archie and was proven to be wrong about some of his points of view as well.

I always find it interesting that shows like AITF and M*A*S*H which were clearly liberal in their content and point of view, appealed greatly to both liberals and conservatives.

And even AITF, which sprung from Norman Lear's liberal perspective, was not above doing shows that showed that Mike ("The Meathead") could be just as full of himself as Archie and was proven to be wrong about some of his points of view as well.
That's why they were so great. My family enjoyed all the Norman Lear shows as well as MASH and they weren't liberals. A lot of today's shows could learn a lot from Norman Lear.

That's why they were so great. My family enjoyed all the Norman Lear shows as well as MASH and they weren't liberals. A lot of today's shows could learn a lot from Norman Lear.

Exactly.

Lear is probably as liberal as one can be in his personal views, but he knew how to give credence to the other side, and balance things.

Nobody does that today. Nobody.

And the weird thing is that my dad, who sided with Archie on just about every single issue (and often reminded me of him), was a Democrat! :lol: Of course, in the Seventies, you could still be a Democrat and hold conservative values. :nod:

Exactly.

Lear is probably as liberal as one can be in his personal views, but he knew how to give credence to the other side, and balance things.

Nobody does that today. Nobody.

True. And they don't make shows like AITF. Everything's so politically correct and creatively "stifled" that a show like AITF would never even make it to air. And if it did, it would be cancelled after two weeks for bad ratings.

True. And they don't make shows like AITF. Everything's so politically correct and creatively "stifled" that a show like AITF would never even make it to air. And if it did, it would be cancelled after two weeks for bad ratings.
Or it would be taken off the air due to protests - and in the age of social media, faxes, etc. - it would be even worse in that regard than it was in the 70s!!! :eek:

No doubt about it, All in the Family was a fantastic sitcom/dramedy. However, we all know that the show overstayed its welcome. Who is to blame for All in the Family "jumping the shark?"It didnt,what happend is THIS POLITICALLY CORRECT GARBAGE TOOK HOLD IN THE STATES AND RUINED THIS SHOW!!!!!! (All the P.C. idiots I should say)

Im glad to have all the shows I have of this!

All In the Family was an entertaining series from beginning to end, and this includes Archie Bunker's Place.

O'Connor after the show became a runaway hit, understandably wanted more money and Lear balked. O'Connor was a not so famous character actor when he was slated for the role as Archie and O'Connor was not even Lear's first choice. O'Connor went on his personal strike, which culminated in those three episodes where Archie "disappeared" after going to a Moose Lodge convention.

I don't know the story, but I think they came to a comprimise and Lear gave in because there would be no AITF without Carroll O'Connor. They were going to bring in James Cromwell as a sort of substitute character if O'Connor left for good and Lear was going to kill the character. Cromwell is a fantastic actor (He's Zephram Cochran and George H.W. Bush man!), but again, I think O'Connor had Lear over a barrell, and remember, Lear was making other shows which were offshoots of AITF, The Jeffersons, Good Times, Maude, and he did not want to lose that.

Struthers and especially Reiner (I think) wanted to move on and they did after their contract. Rob is the son of the legendary Carl Reiner (who is still alive!), and could basically write his own ticket in Hollywood and he wanted to be a director. I am sure Struthers did not want to be typecast and try new things herself. They were on AITF, what 8 years? That is a long time considering that most successful shows last 5 years (Andy Griffith also lasted eight years).

I don't think (but dunno) that the set of the show of not harmonious at all. There was a disagreement between the main star and the head man on the series which was ironed out. O'Connor rightfully got miffed in the end when he read in Variety that Archie Bunker's Place was cancelled. But by and large, the show(s) were not ruined at all. It was a great piece of work.

Yes I think Carol was the BEST pick!! (He was HIMSELF in the show)


Your right,it was excellent stuff!

It didnt,what happend is THIS POLITICALLY CORRECT GARBAGE TOOK HOLD IN THE STATES AND RUINED THIS SHOW!!!!!! (All the P.C. idiots I should say)

Im glad to have all the shows I have of this!

What an absurd post.

What an absurd post.


He is clearly posting from the nut house because AITF was number 1 for 8 straight years. So nothing ruined the show since it was always in the top 10 or 20

He is clearly posting from the nut house because AITF was number 1 for 8 straight years. So nothing ruined the show since it was always in the top 10 or 20
All In the Family was never in any trouble, and Carroll O'Connor made the show.