I've been re-watching the first season of FOL over the past week and while I've always been a massive fan of the Sue Ann Weaver character, it was only in re-watching the series that I began to realize how much potential the character had if only they had taken the time to properly develop her.

I don't know if this occurred to the writers that early on in production but having a character like Sue Ann that was ostensibly an outsider in a strange land left room for a whole world of possibilities for that character. Remember it is mentioned several times throughout the first season that Sue Ann unlike the other girls did not come from an affluent background and was in fact a scholarship student.

Now just based on that little tidbit of information alone given hindsight we know that there have been scores of sitcoms and dramas that have found success in integrating a character that is perceived to be an outsider into new situations/new friends/new environment. One of the most notable success stories as it pertains to this would be the original "Beverly Hills: 90210" which told the story of two teens from the midwest who suddenly found themselves in an affluent environment and learning to adapt to it.

Now given that FOL was a solid decade prior to many of these shows that utilized that storyline successfully, did FOL drop the ball in not making the character of Sue Ann Weaver and her trials and tribulations trying to fit into an affluent environment more a part of the show?

Perhaps they wanted to be careful not to closely parrot what they were attempting somewhat at the time with "Diffrent Strokes" with the integration of two youngsters who were ostensibly living near the poverty line into a world of affluent wealth? But to me while "Diffrent Strokes" spoke of integration within the context of a family, "Facts Of Life" could've at least in part spoke of integration between the two class systems much like was evidenced decades later on shows like "Malibu Shores" and "The OC".

I'm really starting to think this missed out on a fantastic opportunity here where they really could've developed the Sue Ann Weaver character into something truly special. Also given that Julie Piekarski herself at the time was herself a transplant coming to California from the Midwest I'm sure she could've observed the role with a great deal of taste and heart if they had given her more to work with.

It seems at times they were trying to get some sort of clash between the class systems working between the characters of Blair Warner and Sue Ann Weaver but would never develop it beyond a passing reference. Of course they later tried to transfer parts of this storyline to the relationship between Blair and Jo but more times than not it was played for laughs instead of focusing on a storyline that I really felt from the very beginning should've been one of the major themes of the show.

I agree that SUE ANN was a good character but my guess is: the writers must have realized she didn't click at all with BLAIR the way JO did and they were looking for chemistry between the main ones.
It was obvious BLAIR was the number one in the first season with her 'wild ways' so they had to find another strong person to tame her down, and this is where JO comes in......:)

I agree that SUE ANN was a good character but my guess is: the writers must have realized she didn't click at all with BLAIR the way JO did and they were looking for chemistry between the main ones.
It was obvious BLAIR was the number one in the first season with her 'wild ways' so they had to find another strong person to tame her down, and this is where JO comes in......:)

Well I'll admit it was one path to pursue but another route they could've taken was using SUE ANN as more of a sympathetic character that the audience could identify with. You don't necessarily need a full on antagonistic clash between lead characters in order to build a successful television show. As I mentioned that is always an option available to the writers but it's not necessarily a requirement for developing a compelling, ongoing plot.

Now personally I was never a fan of JO although I thought Nancy McKeon was a fine actress who was able to take what was given her and make good use of it. The character however to me always seemed far too over the top for my liking almost to the point of parody. I often refer to JO as the female "Vinnie Barbarino" as John Travolta's character on "Welcome Back Kotter" though wildly popular in it's day was really just played for laughs as an over the top type personality as was JO on FOL. JO could have her serious moments but for the most part the character was horribly pigeonholed from the very start and mainly used to elicit somewhat predictable laughs.

I agree. Of all the season 1 characters that got cut Sue Ann is the only one I really wish would have made it somehow. I don't think she necessarily needed to be in the core group though just someone who was recurring like Pippa, Andy, George etc.

I agree. Of all the season 1 characters that got cut Sue Ann is the only one I really wish would have made it somehow. I don't think she necessarily needed to be in the core group though just someone who was recurring like Pippa, Andy, George etc.

I agree with you guys: i was never a big fan of JO (the way most of the people are) and for me BLAIR and MRS G have always been my number ones!:wave:
SUE ANN was the best from the 'forgotten fol girls' and it is a shame they didn't keep her together with the other 4 girls (she would have made a good friend to TOOTIE and NAT).

I disagree because I didn't think Julie was a good actress.

The problem was that Sue Ann and Blair were both attractive blondes and it was obvious despite their different backgrounds, neither girl would be at a loss for getting dates or being popular with other girls. The physical similarities were too great.

Jo's abrasiveness, sarcasm and blue-collar Bronx background made for a better contrast/conflict with Blair which IMO really drove the stories after she arrived. They needed that 'rough-around-the-edges' character to balance things out. It would not have been the same had the foursome been Blair, Sue Ann, Natalie and Tootie.

I disagree because I didn't think Julie was a good actress.

I'd say out of the '4 forgotten girls' SUE ANN was the best one......:p

Maybe, but I didn't think any of them were very good actresses lol. The only two that stood out were Blair and Tootie to me. Although I'm glad they also kept Natalie because I thought she was adorable, and she had the same personality as me. haha

Maybe, but I didn't think any of them were very good actresses lol. The only two that stood out were Blair and Tootie to me. Although I'm glad they also kept Natalie because I thought she was adorable, and she had the same personality as me. haha

BLAIR was definitely the one that stood out from the very first day: on the 'pilot' she delivers unforgettable lines when she acts like a 'spoiled brat' in front of MRS G, and you can tell she will outsmart NANCY by becoming the main one. The writers must have realized she had potential cos when they formed FOL they centered most of the stories around the 'debutante' by making her being as 'wild easy' type: only the housemother gets to see she's only a tease when she confronts her over bullying CINDY and from that moment on they form a strong bond.
NATALIE on the other hand had no acting experience at all but i think they decided to keep her to see if she would develop a personality. She did and from season 2 onward she was the funniest one of them all!
TOOTIE was great on season 1 and 2, but afterwards she became a pain whining all the time with her high pitch kind of voice, although i'm glad they kept her since FOL would have never been the same without our 5 stars: MRS G, BLAIR, JO, NAT & TOOTIE......:happyface

i always thought they should have kept the other girls as recurring characters and just use them when they needed to and focus on the 4 main girls.

Sue Ann was alright, but my favorite of the first year girls was Molly.

I'm torn myself. Sue Ann seemed to be modeled on Betty Cooper from the Archie Comics. Blair was clearly supposed to be Veronica Lodge. The fact that they could both get dates was not a problem. I think the fact that they both had blonde hair was probably a problem. Nancy McKeon is a much better actress though, so in this respect it seems to have worked out for the best.

i always thought they should have kept the other girls as recurring characters and just use them when they needed to and focus on the 4 main girls.

Sue Ann was alright, but my favorite of the first year girls was Molly.


No offense to you but MOLLY was actually the worst one of all the actresses and soo annoying!:eek:

lol I agree that Molly was horrible. I would have liked if they had the original girls make appearances throughout, as well as Kimberly. But I definitely would never pick them as the main characters over the four that we eventually got.

Sue Ann should have gotten expelled for smoking marijuana and never heard from again. 3 other girls who had smoked marijuana got expelled right around that time, including a young Holly Hunt, and I don't understand why Sue Ann sneaked through. Blair had even warned her against it. I admire Blair for not falling into that crap.

Personally, I thought Sue Ann was the most annoying. I found her jealousy of Cindy in the episode where they ran track to be completely disgusting. Sue Ann had already won the championship twice and didn't want/need any more, but she had a problem with Cindy going for it, even though they were from the same school.

I really don't understand why they attempted to make Sue Ann country/rural, because she was from KANSAS CITY and not some small town, and Missouri isn't even a true southern state.

I didn't have a problem with Molly, though I can understand how some people might find her annoying. I still think she could have benefitted the show some way, given how successful she became with all those John Hughes, teen angst-y movies.

I liked Cindy and thought they were going to write her as a lesbian eventually, but the writers might have thought that might have been too controversial for the time period.

Nancy was pretty much useless. It seems she didn't do anything except talk on the phone with Roger. wasted space.

I liked Sue Ann, Cindy, Nancy and Molly and wish they had been kept on as supporting characters. They were for awhile but only two seasons.

Julie Piekarski, while I admit did have her few moments, was basically a terrible actress. As much as I adore the first season (greatly for nostalgia's sake, as I remember watching the first several seasons in syndication as a little kid), Julie just made Sue Ann so grating and annoying. I'm sorry Sue Ann/Julie fans, but I honestly don't understand why they ever hired her in the first place. It seems like she wouldn't have made it past even a test audition. When watching season one I often find myself wondering, "What were they thinking??"

I liked Molly a lot. She was cute, and I liked the idea of having her character being a feisty feminist. That could have produced some very interesting and intriguing story lines.

Nancy, "meh". Felice's acting was okay but there was just no character there; simply the Roger novelty. That was cute and had its moments, but it just wasn't anywhere near enough to develop a character.

Cindy is my favorite of the four "lost girls". Julie Anne's acting was pretty good, and her tomboy character was such a stark contrast to Blair's princess; that pilot episode starring the two of them was a great one. I wouldn't be surprised if in today's age the show was being produced that they did make Cindy a lesbian.

I wish they had gotten to keep Cindy and Molly around at least for recurring appearances and to drive some more stories that would have been different in themselves from stories the other girls generated.

^Yeah, Cindy and Molly are my favorites of the lost girls, I think I would just relate to them more IRL. I just watched the first episode (a 2-parter) from season 2 and Molly appeared (having grown considerably between seasons), but they barely acknowledged her presence and the girls didn't look thrilled to see her (unlike the big reunion at the beginning of the episode where Blair, Natalie and Tootie are all very excited to see each other.)

I just watched the first episode (a 2-parter) from season 2 and Molly appeared (having grown considerably between seasons), but they barely acknowledged her presence and the girls didn't look thrilled to see her (unlike the big reunion at the beginning of the episode where Blair, Natalie and Tootie are all very excited to see each other.)

Well, I think we have to keep in mind though that that scene took place after the first day of school (it could have been the 2nd or 3rd or so), so the "new" of reuniting with friends had already taken place; probably we're to assume the girls visited/reunited with the "lost girls" sometime off-screen during that first day/night.

Yes, I think they dropped the ball with Sue Ann. Her Midwest family values were a good foil against Blair's Manhattan elite background. Of the 'lost girls', Sue Ann was the only one who could hold her own against Blair. It's a pity they let Julie Piekarski go.

Cindy Webster was an interesting foil for Blair as well, and Julie Anne Haddock was a talented actress, but I think the stronger Sue Ann character was a slightly better foil.

Unfortunately, Felice's character, Nancy, was never really developed (outside of being boy-crazy and always on the phone), and Molly's character never really rang true for me (what 12-year-old girl in real life is a dedicated feminist?)

I thought it was reprehensible the way Sue Ann and Nancy treated Natalie and homerun Helen in the episode "Sex Symbol", after they had been dumped as regular characters, and deservedly so. Teasing them because they were "easy", (which Natalie even wasn't, the boy had spread lies about her) was beyond disgusting. Thankfully we didn't see much of them after that.

lol I agree that Molly was horrible. I would have liked if they had the original girls make appearances throughout, as well as Kimberly. But I definitely would never pick them as the main characters over the four that we eventually got.

They're WOMEN! Ok? :D

-Molly

Bwahahah! Good Molly impression, Tom!

(And yet, notice in "Running", where she praises Mrs. G's camera usage by saying "Good girl!" Mrs. G was probably in her 60s, and left 'girl' behind a long time ago.)

I know that "MTM" ended a few years before, but wouldn't it have been funny/awesome had Sue Ann gone to a taping of "The Happy Homemaker" and had THAT Sue Ann meet her? Would Miss Nivens have dissed her or have made her her protege?:lol:

There are all sorts of stories they could have done with Sue Ann. For example:

Sue Ann's parents from Kansas City visit, and disapprove of the schooling she is receiving, after seeing her wearing Blair's clothes and make-up. They decide to pull her out of Eastland. Can Mrs. G and the girls convince Mr. and Mrs. Weaver to let her stay?

There are all sorts of stories they could have done with Sue Ann. For example:

Sue Ann's parents from Kansas City visit, and disapprove of the schooling she is receiving, after seeing her wearing Blair's clothes and make-up. They decide to pull her out of Eastland. Can Mrs. G and the girls convince Mr. and Mrs. Weaver to let her stay?

That doesn't make much sense. What clothes a person wears has nothing to do with their education. I can't see Sue Ann wearing Blair's clothes in any event.

I still wish there was a reason about the "Four Lost Girls" and how they disappeared.

Maybe that can be a Fan Fiction that I'll write someday.

That doesn't make much sense. What clothes a person wears has nothing to do with their education. I can't see Sue Ann wearing Blair's clothes in any event.

All the girls borrow clothes from Blair, as shown in multiple episodes. In fact, I recall every girl in the dorm wanting to try on Blair's dad's company's clothes in one of the first season episodes. Cindy wanted to try the 1940s look. Sue Ann was in that scene, too.

I still wish there was a reason about the "Four Lost Girls" and how they disappeared.

Maybe that can be a Fan Fiction that I'll write someday.

I would totally read that. If you write it, please post the link here, too.

Meanwhile, the best explanation given (IMO) is a funny, tongue-in-cheek Halloween promo made by Nick at Nite in the 1990s, which hinted that Mrs. Garrett had disposed of them/kept them locked in the basement. I wish I could find that promo, now!

They didn't totally disappear though. They all resurfaced in multiple episodes after season 1, which was the season in which they were regulars. Even as late as 1986 they were appearing. It wasn't like, say, Judy Winslow whom you never saw again.

They didn't totally disappear though. They all resurfaced in multiple episodes after season 1, which was the season in which they were regulars. Even as late as 1986 they were appearing. It wasn't like, say, Judy Winslow whom you never saw again.

Yep. That's true. Even though the Lost Girls didn't have large roles in the later seasons, I would much rather they had the small parts than nothing at all. The Missing Judy Winslow thing was... creepy. The family just ignored the fact that Judy ever existed.

They never did anything with Judy Winslow. Re-watching the series, I'm up to early season 3, and she has no significant storylines whatsoever. Some episodes she appears momentarily, others not at all. Then she was unceremoniously dropped. I would have like to seen what she was capable of. One memorable moment I can think of was when she was arguing with Laura in the episode where Laura gave away Mother Winslow's heirloom quilt (I always hated it when Laura did that) and Judy ends the argument by saying "Don't mess with me". I thought it was funny.

They never did anything with Judy Winslow. Re-watching the series, I'm up to early season 3, and she has no significant storylines whatsoever. Some episodes she appears momentarily, others not at all. Then she was unceremoniously dropped. I would have like to seen what she was capable of. One memorable moment I can think of was when she was arguing with Laura in the episode where Laura gave away Mother Winslow's heirloom quilt (I always hated it when Laura did that) and Judy ends the argument by saying "Don't mess with me". I thought it was funny.

I haven't seen Family Matters in decades (Judy's acute case of Chuck Cunningham Syndrome turned me off of the show). It's a shame they never did much with the character; as you say, it would have been nice to see what the actress was capable of.

I feel the same, to some extent, about the Lost Girls. It's nice that the producers brought them back for a few episodes here and there, but their parts were so small. Someone else said Julie and Julie Anne were reduced to wallpaper, and that's true: I think they got about three lines per episode. Felice got a decent part in "Gossip", but in the other episodes, she was basically walking scenery, too. It wasn't until "The Little Chill", four years later, that they resolved the Lost Girls' storylines. They could have given those girls more to do without focusing on them. They should at least have been at Eastland for their own graduations.

I'm glad they didn't make Sue Ann a regular character after season 1. The writers could have developed her character but Julie just didn't have the acting chops to take her character to that next level (We will never know for sure though). Also, the fish-out-of-water character was really resolved by Jo. Jo may have been a caricature at first but the writers really fleshed her character out later on and made her, in my opinion, the most dimensional character of the show. She could handle dramatic and comedic scenes extremely well.

I'm glad they didn't make Sue Ann a regular character after season 1. The writers could have developed her character but Julie just didn't have the acting chops to take her character to that next level (We will never know for sure though).

I think Julie Pie proved herself in "The Little Chill", the reunion episode that revolved mainly around her concealing the fact that she's just a gofer.

Also, the fish-out-of-water character was really resolved by Jo. Jo may have been a caricature at first but the writers really fleshed her character out later on and made her, in my opinion, the most dimensional character of the show. She could handle dramatic and comedic scenes extremely well.

I agree that Jo started out as a caricature (basically Fonzie 2.0), but the writers did give her a lot of depth. Nancy McKeon was a big part of why the Jo character was so successful.

I can think of quite a few episodes they could have done for the lost girls. Here's my 'alternate reality' FOL Season 2 episode guide:

2-01 "The New Girl, part 1": A new student, Jo Polniaczek (Nancy McKeon), arrives at Eastland. Mrs. Garrett forces Jo and Blair to become friends. Jo wants to do something rebellious, daring Blair to come along. She hotwires a van and takes them to a bar, but run into trouble when a guy there reveals himself to be an undercover cop.

2-02 "The New Girl: Part 2": After wrecking the school van and being thrown in jail, Jo, Blair, Natalie and Tootie are expelled from Eastland, leaving Sue Ann, Nancy, Cindy, and Molly as the main characters.

2-03 "The Ballet": Nancy (Felice Schachter) is asked to perform in the school ballet. But when her practices get in the way of her schoolwork, Nancy has a tough choice to make. Will she leave Eastland? (Felice practiced ballet)

2-04 "Made up": When Sue Ann's (Julie Piekarski) parents from Kansas City visit, they disapprove of the schooling she is receiving, and decide to pull her out of Eastland. Can Mrs. G and the girls convince Mr. and Mrs. Weaver to let her stay?

2-05 "Unparalleled": When Cindy's (Julie Anne Haddock) gymnastics coach pushes too hard, she is injured. Only Molly knows what happened... and Cindy has sworn her to secrecy. (Julie Anne was good at gymnastics)

2-06 Sue Ann falls for a boy just in time for the school dance, but she doesn't realize until after she's accepted the date that he's in a wheelchair.

2-07 "Broken Up": When Roger breaks up with Nancy, she becomes rebellious. Can Mrs. Garrett convince her that breaking up isn't the end of the world?

2-08 "Reunited": Jo, Blair, Natalie and Tootie are allowed back at Eastland. But their reunion may be short-lived when Jo and Blair's fights get them kicked out of the Eastland Library. Can the other girls convince Jo and Blair to declare a cease fire?

2-09 "Gossip": Tootie's gossiping about Roger causes a rift between Blair, Jo, and Nancy, and may cost Mrs. Garrett her job when the headmaster hears.

2-10 "Sex Symbol": Natalie has a study session with a boy she met at a school dance. But rumors start spreading about just how far she went, and Nancy, Sue Ann, and Cindy go too far with their jokes.

2-11 "The Secret": Jo has won an award at Eastland, but when her recently paroled father (Alex Rocco) wants to attend, Jo tries to hide that fact from her friends. When Sue Ann finds out, Jo is certain the whole school will know the truth.

2-12 "Bought and Sold": Blair is selling Countess Calvert cosmetics; she uses Sue Ann as a walking billboard, over Molly's objections. Todd Bridges and Zsa Zsa Gabor guest star.

2-13 "Pretty Babies": A top fashion photographer is coming to Eastland to find the new face of the '80s, and Blair and Nancy are both positive they will be the one. The photographer surprises everyone by choosing Tootie, but the price of her photo session proves costly.

2-14 "Cousin Geri": Blair's cousin Geri (Geri Jewell), a comedian who has cerebral palsy, visits.

2-15 "Free Spirit": Mrs. Garrett's son, Alex, visits Eastland. Alex brags about his life as a musician socializing with famous people such as Carly Simon and Neil Diamond, which attracts Nancy's affections, but Blair is suspicious.

2-16 "Teenage Marriage": Jo receives an unexpected visit from her boyfriend Eddie, who has gone AWOL from the Navy, and surprises her with a marriage proposal. Can the girls convince her to stay?

I think Julie Pie proved herself in "The Little Chill", the reunion episode that revolved mainly around her concealing the fact that she's just a gofer.

I think she was still a terrible actress. I remember watching it on YouTube in recent times and thinking what a shame it was that of the Lost Girls guest starring in the episode, they picked the worst actress to have the main story line. Ugh!

I think she was still a terrible actress. I remember watching it on YouTube in recent times and thinking what a shame it was that of the Lost Girls guest starring in the episode, the picked the worst actress to have the main story line. Ugh!

I completely disagree, but c'est la vie! To each his own. :cheers:

I can think of quite a few episodes they could have done for the lost girls.

When watching the series, sometimes I think I would prefer if they had used the Lost Girls as characters instead of "one-shot" characters in an episode.

For instance, we have the episode where their great friend Allison---whom we never before saw---comes to visit with her brand new baby, and temporarily abandons her. And then there's the one where Natalie accidentally uncovers a school abortion. I could easily see Nancy being either one of these girls, especially the abortion episode (having gone "too far" with Roger one night), but instead they're new girls we've never seen before. They could have even done the abortion one with Molly, who, being a feminist, perhaps could have put a different angle on her decision and choice, and the circumstances.

And then the Cynthia suicide episode would have been even more effective if it had been, say, Sue Ann or Cindy instead, a girl the viewers knew and were familiar with.

On one hand I feel like it was such a missed opportunity to showcase these Lost Girls in episodes such as these, but, on the other hand, I also realize it was a private school that actually consisted of more than 7 or 8 students, lol.

Still, sometimes I wonder...

When watching the series, sometimes I think I would prefer if they had used the Lost Girls as characters instead of "one-shot" characters in an episode.

For instance, we have the episode where their great friend Allison---whom we never before saw---comes to visit with her brand new baby, and temporarily abandons her. And then there's the one where Natalie accidentally uncovers a school abortion. I could easily see Nancy being either one of these girls, especially the abortion episode (having gone "too far" with Roger one night), but instead they're new girls we've never seen before. They could have even done the abortion one with Molly, who, being a feminist, perhaps could have put a different angle on her decision and choice, and the circumstances.

And then the Cynthia suicide episode would have been even more effective if it had been, say, Sue Ann or Cindy instead, a girl the viewers knew and were familiar with.

On one hand I feel like it was such a missed opportunity to showcase these Lost Girls in episodes such as these, but, on the other hand, I also realize it was a private school that actually consisted of more than 7 or 8 students, lol.

Still, sometimes I wonder...

Great points. I actually wonder if "Cynthia" wasn't meant to be "Cindy" and then they changed their minds about killing off a character that had been such a major part of the show. Nancy would have been a good choice for the abortion episode, considering viewers had gotten to know her previously, and it would have had quite an impact. And, as you say, Molly's perspective would have fit well in that episode, too (one of the rare places where "OMG! I'm a feminist!" actually works).

Yet I'm torn. If they killed off Cindy, or had Nancy abort her baby, there's no way they would have brought them back for later episodes (suicide for obvious reasons, abortion because it was the 1980s). That would have been the end of seeing them on screen. We wouldn't have seen them in "The Little Chill" all grown up, and we wouldn't have seen any of the small cameos they did make in seasons 2 and 3.

And you have a good point about Eastland needing more than 8 students (unless Blair's tuition alone was paying for everything!). Even adding in recurring characters Alexandra, Miko, and Terri wouldn't have paid Eastland's bills. I assume you'd need at least 100 students to keep a private school running, possibly quite a bit more. All the Eastland classroom scenes depict very small class sizes, with what looks like no more than a dozen students. Yet they had sports teams, and did well in athletic competitions, judging by the trophies Sue Ann won. So the school probably wasn't all that tiny.

Great points. I actually wonder if "Cynthia" wasn't meant to be "Cindy" and then they changed their minds about killing off a character that had been such a major part of the show.

I would be inclined to say no, since part of Cynthia's story was her being so lonely what with her parents always being gone, and her surpassing Blair in popularity (at least for the election) as a new girl; a real threat to Blair. But, yes, being a Cindy-lover, it does bother me that they chose a name so freakin' close to "Cindy"! lol


And you have a good point about Eastland needing more than 8 students (unless Blair's tuition alone was paying for everything!). Even adding in recurring characters Alexandra, Miko, and Terri wouldn't have paid Eastland's bills.

Terri, I always liked her. I would much rather have had a lot more of her instead of that "Princess Alexandra"; I never cared for her. At least she wasn't used much at all.

I would be inclined to say no, since part of Cynthia's story was her being so lonely what with her parents always being gone, and her surpassing Blair in popularity (at least for the election) as a new girl; a real threat to Blair.

I guess we'll never know for sure.

But, yes, being a Cindy-lover, it does bother me that they chose a name so freakin' close to "Cindy"! lol

Yep! Not only that, there's another Eastland episode where they mention a student named Cynthia... come on, writers!


Terri, I always liked her. I would much rather have had a lot more of her instead of that "Princess Alexandra"; I never cared for her. At least she wasn't used much at all.

I liked that Tootie had at least one African-American friend, even if they weren't so close.

Okay, now re-watching season 1 again, let me amend my comments about Julie P.'s acting. I don't think she is a terrible actress all the time on the show. Sometimes I actually do think she's quite good, and effective (she does great in the last little scene in "Like Mother, Like Daughter"). It's just that when she's bad, she's really bad, and that's what sticks out to me.

Ya know, something I'm realizing now, Sue Ann kind of "stole" Nancy's role. Now know that I am not saying Julie P. stole Felice's part, I am meaning strictly writing-wise with the characters.

In the first four episodes there are inklings of Nancy being practical, conservative, traditional, of high morals, and facing financial troubles and having to "go on scholarship". Now that contrasts greatly with the early Blair. Plus, Felice was a dark brunette while Blair was a honey blonde. The writers could have really written a great Blair-Nancy rivalry if they had tried; just look at season 2's "Gossip", they finally got Nancy "right", after they fired Felice!

And in the back-door pilot "The Girls School", Sue Ann is more like the naive mid-western type which the writers had originally written Blair (which never made it to the screen, once they saw what Lisa did with the acting and then wrote her as the Blair Warner we all know and love/hate today, lol [I love her]).

Yet for some reason, the writers left the back-door pilot plot-central Nancy, and instead chose to make Sue Ann a moralistic character, with mid-western values more conservative than Blair's, who is there on scholarship. Based on these observations, I wonder if Felice ever thought they "gave" her character to Sue Ann?

Also, Felice talks about going to the producers in angst at the start of the series, asking them "What happened to my character??" after having been promised a prominent part on this show after being the central character in "The Girls School" (2nd to Mrs. Garrett), and then seeing her written into wallpaper, and being "reassured" they just had to take time to find out more about how they wanted to write Nancy (which, if you've read the above, makes me thing they actually "wrote Sue Ann" as Nancy in many ways).

Yet Lisa says the girls didn't do things like counting how many lines they had in the script or anything like that. Hmm well Lisa, maybe that's easy to say when you're the biggest break-out character from the get-go and stay for all 9 seasons. ;) I'm sure she never thought about counting how many lines she had, because she always had plenty! lol Some of the other girls, not nearly as much.

Sue Ann Weaver...the Nancy Olson that could have been!

Ya know, something I'm realizing now, Sue Ann kind of "stole" Nancy's role. Now know that I am not saying Julie P. stole Felice's part, I am meaning strictly writing-wise with the characters.

Huh. Very interesting perspective. I have always felt that Blair's role was expanded at the expense of Nancy, but you make some good points below.


In the first four episodes there are inklings of Nancy being practical, conservative, traditional, of high morals, and facing financial troubles and having to "go on scholarship". Now that contrasts greatly with the early Blair. Plus, Felice was a dark brunette while Blair was a honey blonde. The writers could have really written a great Blair-Nancy rivalry if they had tried; just look at season 2's "Gossip", they finally got Nancy "right", after they fired Felice!

It does seem like they were trying to make Nancy a foil to Blair, but suddenly switched gears mid-season. As you say, she was the first one to mention that she was at Eastland on a scholarship. And I agree that the writers did their finest work on Nancy ironically after she had been fired from the show. "Gossip" was the biggest role they had given her since "IQ", a season before.


And in the back-door pilot "The Girls School", Sue Ann is more like the naive mid-western type which the writers had originally written Blair (which never made it to the screen, once they saw what Lisa did with the acting and then wrote her as the Blair Warner we all know and love/hate today, lol [I love her]).

I love Blair, too. And I see your point about Sue Ann being the naive Midwestern type that they originally wrote for Lisa. Yet it was Blair who suddenly developed a crush on Mr. Bradley in "Flash Flood". Blair Warner, who could have had any guy she wanted. What on earth was Blair doing in the stables, caring for horses and rabbits?! Wouldn't going to a stable ruin her cashmere? (Random aside: why does a girls' school only have one horse?!)

I think "Flash Flood" was written with Nancy in mind: the impressionable, boy-crazy, all-American girl, who develops a crush on an older man, not the snobby rich girl who wouldn't be caught dead in a stable, let alone grabbing a shovel. The producers saw they had a hit with Blair, and shunted Nancy to the periphery. There's no way that episode was originally written with Blair in mind.


Also, Felice talks about going to the producers in angst at the start of the series, asking them "What happened to my character??" after having been promised a prominent part on this show after being the central character in "The Girls School" (2nd to Mrs. Garrett), and then seeing her written into wallpaper, and being "reassured" they just had to take time to find out more about how they wanted to write Nancy (which, if you've read the above, makes me thing they actually "wrote Sue Ann" as Nancy in many ways).

Yet Lisa says the girls didn't do things like counting how many lines they had in the script or anything like that. Hmm well Lisa, maybe that's easy to say when you're the biggest break-out character from the get-go and stay for all 9 seasons. ;) I'm sure she never thought about counting how many lines she had, because she always had plenty! lol Some of the other girls, not nearly as much.

So true! I mean, it's all about perspective. John Lawlor specifically said in the E! True Hollywood Story episode in 1999 that there was line-counting in that first season, and Felice confirmed it in the 2006 interview. But someone who had tons of lines never had to worry about line-counting.

Meanwhile, Felice, originally the main girl, saw her character erode until, by the last episode of the first season, her character actually left the show halfway through the episode!

Huh. Very interesting perspective. I have always felt that Blair's role was expanded at the expense of Nancy, but you make some good points below.

Thanks, and your Blair/Nancy take could make a good theory as well. After all, like we've said, we know Blair was written completely differently for "The Girls School", but Lisa's first reading changed the producers/writers' minds so quickly that that Blair never materialized! Who knows what they may have in mind for Nancy before Blair Warner suddenly metamorphosed?


It does seem like they were trying to make Nancy a foil to Blair, but suddenly switched gears mid-season.

Nancy and Blair just seemed the same age anyway. Sue Ann doesn't seem as close to their age in the first 4 "Miss Mahoney" shows (lol) as she does in the later 9.

Here's how their "age tiers" seem to me in the first 4 shows:

Older girls:

Blair
Nancy


Middle girls:

Sue Ann
Cindy


Younger girls:

Natalie
Molly
Tootie


But in the later 9 episodes, it seems to me more like this:

Older girls:

Blair
Nancy
Sue Ann


Middle Girl:

Cindy


Younger Girls:

Molly
Natalie
Tootie


And we obviously know the Natalie/Tootie best friendship developed, but it's bittersweet seeing the startings of a good Natalie/Cindy pairing, too. I love their mutual infatuation with Steve, and they provide some good laughs over that. :)


Yet it was Blair who suddenly developed a crush on Mr. Bradley in "Flash Flood". Blair Warner, who could have had any guy she wanted. What on earth was Blair doing in the stables, caring for horses and rabbits?! Wouldn't going to a stable ruin her cashmere? (Random aside: why does a girls' school only have one horse?!)

lol, well, after all with Mr. Bradley it wasn't true attraction for him, it was the whole temporary, circumstantial "hero worship" thing. And it doesn't seem odd to me for Blair to have a horse and care for it in the stable; in one episode she tells a guy she'll be spending the summer at a dude ranch. Maybe not the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks of Blair Warner, but she does have Texas Warners in her family, she sometimes wears boots, and I can see her having that "teenage girl-loving horses" part of her, lol.

It is funny though that their "stables" are one building with one horse and two bunnies. :lol: I wish they had at least been mentioned in seasons 2-4, or even had the bunnies shown on screen again; that would have been some nice continuity!


I think "Flash Flood" was written with Nancy in mind: the impressionable, boy-crazy, all-American girl, who develops a crush on an older man, not the snobby rich girl who wouldn't be caught dead in a stable, let alone grabbing a shovel. The producers saw they had a hit with Blair, and shunted Nancy to the periphery. There's no way that episode was originally written with Blair in mind.

Well, only the writers could say for sure. With my other Blair thoughts above, I disagree, and since the show was already well under way when this episode was produced, I would think the writer/s wrote it with "the breakaway" Blair character in the lead; poor Lost Girls, she got nearly all the leads!

If it helps any though, we only see Blair grab a shovel in the direst of emergencies, lol. ;)


So true! I mean, it's all about perspective. John Lawlor specifically said in the E! True Hollywood Story episode in 1999 that there was line-counting in that first season

Oh man, I wish that were available on YouTube!! *sigh*...I saw it once on TV some 7-10 years ago, and haven't seen it since...I also had "Cast Confessions" on my DVR, but it got erased when it got too full and wiped some stuff out. :(

(hate ending this post on a downer, lol)

Here is the age range from the FOL girls i would say they were:

-Older girls: BLAIR, NANCY & SUE ANN were 15 years old on season 1.

_Middle girls: CINDY and MOLLY were 13 years old.

_ Younger girls: NAT was 12 and TOOTIE 11 years old so there you go!

So i guess the writers were just accurate on making BLAIR being 15 years and a half on season 2 and JO only 15 lol!:cool:

Cindy states in the 1st episode she is 14.

"I'm 14 years old, and I don't even like guys!"

Natalie is 13, as is stated in "Adoption".

And Tootie is 12 years old, which is stated several times in "Overachieving".

Regarding the ages of the girls: For what it's worth the teen fan magazines at the time had from the onset already plucked out Lisa, Felice and Julie Piekarski away from the other girls as the three actresses they were going to focus on. There was one piece I remember in particular where they interviewed all three girls about their backgrounds, the show and whatnot.

Lisa and Julie also both got feature pieces in one of the magazines that went into some degree of depth about their careers up until that point. I'm guessing because both girls were already familiar to the audiences of the teen magazines being former mouseketeers made them prime candidates for features upon the inception of FOL.

The 4 girls that got dropped had no IT factor nor charisma. If you don't have IT you don't have IT, no matter what the writers do with your character.

I think she was still a terrible actress. I remember watching it on YouTube in recent times and thinking what a shame it was that of the Lost Girls guest starring in the episode, they picked the worst actress to have the main story line. Ugh!

Gosh Eightsy from six years ago sure was harsh!

Yikes! He really was! :lol:

Maybe i wasn't having the best day!

I don't feel that to that extent nowadays. I've seen posts from me and from others from "older years" that don't sound the same as me and they do nowadays.

Yikes! He really was! :lol:

Maybe i wasn't having the best day!

I don't feel that to that extent nowadays. I've seen posts from me and from others from "older years" that don't sound the same as me and they do nowadays.

Haha Ik what ya mean! Maybe age has softened us up a bit! :grr:

Haha Ik what ya mean! Maybe age has softened us up a bit! :grr:
I feel the same way.