I don't know why this has always bothered me but the performances often show an audience who likely wouldn't be into them. Their music is bubblegum rock (nothing wrong with that btw)and would appeal more to kids and teens. However, at most of their performances it's mostly older people, and it would appear these audiences for the most part have money. In fact the audiences remind me of my grandparents and I guarantee my grandparents would never go see them in concert.

My other question that has always puzzled me is the show portrays them as being successful and having all these hit songs, yet at home aren't portrayed as that. In fact there have been episodes where members appear to be broke, like Keith getting a job. If he was a big star why would he get a job at a minimum wage place? I get the idea of them living in a middle class area, because even some big stars do. I grew up in an area very much like theirs and we had some pretty successful people on our block, like several doctors and even a politician.

I don't know why this has always bothered me but the performances often show an audience who likely wouldn't be into them. Their music is bubblegum rock (nothing wrong with that btw)and would appeal more to kids and teens. However, at most of their performances it's mostly older people, and it would appear these audiences for the most part have money. In fact the audiences remind me of my grandparents and I guarantee my grandparents would never go see them in concert.

My other question that has always puzzled me is the show portrays them as being successful and having all these hit songs, yet at home aren't portrayed as that. In fact there have been episodes where members appear to be broke, like Keith getting a job. If he was a big star why would he get a job at a minimum wage place? I get the idea of them living in a middle class area, because even some big stars do. I grew up in an area very much like theirs and we had some pretty successful people on our block, like several doctors and even a politician.
The reason Keith and the other kids (except Danny!) are always broke is because their share of the money from the music career was put in a trust fund to pay for college.

Yeah but you'd think they could have some money, especially Keith who was in college by the end of the series.

I, too have always been aware that the audiences the family played for on the show appeared to be much older than those that would appreciate or pay to see & hear bubblegum pop. Often the audiences had the appearance of film stock footage: inserted into the filming after the production of the show itself. I remember seeing them play to several audiences that had no one who appeared under 30.

Stock footage may explain this. After all if they hired people (even extras)they would have to have paid.

Remember that they lived in Albuquerque New Mexico, not exactly the hotbed of entertainment. I have never been there, so I can't say how accurate the portrayal of the town was.

They had some success, but they only toured during the Summer, so the kids could go to school, so their income was limited. In the pilot they did open for Johnny Cash in Las Vegas.

They lived in San Pueblo California, not New Mexico. I always assumed this was by San Francisco.

My other question that has always puzzled me is the show portrays them as being successful and having all these hit songs, yet at home aren't portrayed as that. In fact there have been episodes where members appear to be broke, like Keith getting a job. If he was a big star why would he get a job at a minimum wage place? I get the idea of them living in a middle class area, because even some big stars do. I grew up in an area very much like theirs and we had some pretty successful people on our block, like several doctors and even a politician.


It never bothered me since it had been spelled out that they'd already had lived in that home prior to the show's start. Presumably, the late Mr. Partridge had been in a prosperous enough position to buy a multi-bedroom house for his large family and ,since I don't recall any episodes when they were worried about the mortgage, it appears he'd paid if off prior to his 'sudden death' six months prior to the show's opening. Yeah, the were often seen struggling to pay day-to-day bills even after they became 'nationally' known but that's not quite the same as not even having a home of one's own.

P.S. Although, now that you bring up the subject of things 'bothersome' re the show, I do think it was a bit much that apart from the single mention of Mr. Partridge having suddenly died six months via Shirley's explanatory opening narrative prior to the show's start, at no time did any of his family ever express how it emotionally impacted them or, in fact, any memory of Mr. Partridge. It seemed as though his death only served as an obstacle thrown in their collective path that they had to find a way to become self-sufficient as a result and that was why they formed the band.

That bothered me too, but not talking about a parent's death was common on tv shows then.

They lived in San Pueblo California, not New Mexico. I always assumed this was by San Francisco.

And that's my pet peeve: the name San Pueblo makes no sense. It means Saint Town or Saint People.

I hadn't thought of that before but now that you mention it that makes no sense. I suppose they could say it was named after a town were people allegedly saw saints but still bizarre.

They lived in San Pueblo California, not New Mexico. I always assumed this was by San Francisco.


I stand corrected. Point Me in the Direction of Albuquerque was a name of one of their songs. I was only 6 when the show debuted, so I assumed they lived in Albuquerque. It bothered me why Ruben Kinkade would be spinning his wheels in New Mexico! :crazy:

I stand corrected. Point Me in the Direction of Albuquerque was a name of one of their songs. I was only 6 when the show debuted, so I assumed they lived in Albuquerque. It bothered me why Ruben Kinkade would be spinning his wheels in New Mexico! :crazy:


There was an episode they were traveling to Albuquerque . They picked up a teenage girl hitch hiking . She was living with her grandparents in Nebraska (I think it was Nebraska)? And she was running away to be with her father in Albuquerque. :) It was a really good episode. Really showing a sign of the times. Early 70's, young girl hitch hiking, so dangerous! Thank God the young people don't do that these days! How cool that she got picked up by the Partridges and got to ride on that really cool bus? :) ;)

Of course they played that song Point me in the direction of Albuquerque. Good song! :)

It has to do with focusing on certain adventures or situations that the characters find themselves in more than the details. Yes the Partridges were "famous" and sold records and performed in concerts and yet Keith and Lori were able to go to school and though Keith had a lot of girls after him, it was not actually that extreme. It seemed that other guys who were in the football team and or played sports in school also had girls after them and Keith did not have it that much worse than that.
It seems that in general The Partridges were a small time family band who did not play big arenas but who played small clubs and such.
You are right that "older people" were depicted as their audience much of the time and there was no disruptive screaming or girls running to the stage except maybe in one episode in which the Partridges played to a group of girl scouts and when they finished their song, Keith was expecting the girls to run to him so he readied his pen to sign autographs but the girls all ran to Danny instead.

But again, it was a TV show whos creators did not put too much thought into the fact that the fictitious name of "San Pueblo" would sound strange to Hispanic people and also a popular singing act with a heartthrob like "Keith" would not likely have audiences of people mostly in their 30s and older (and also the audiences would often equally consist of men and women).

But I recall an episode of "Here's Lucy" in which Donny Osmond sang to an audience in a dinner club and there weren't any teen girls in the audience except for Lucy's niece ( played by Eve Plumb). The rest were people who looked as if they were in their 30s.

There was an episode they were traveling to Albuquerque . They picked up a teenage girl hitch hiking . She was living with her grandparents in Nebraska (I think it was Nebraska)? And she was running away to be with her father in Albuquerque. :) It was a really good episode. Really showing a sign of the times. Early 70's, young girl hitch hiking, so dangerous! Thank God the young people don't do that these days!...........)


Hitchhiking was considered dangerous back then, and even before.

People do hitchhike today if they need to or if that is their lifestyle.
There are still some people who may be too young to remember the "Hippie generation" but who still try to live like "Hippies" used to.

Of course it will always be dangerous.

.............

My other question that has always puzzled me is the show portrays them as being successful and having all these hit songs, yet at home aren't portrayed as that. In fact there have been episodes where members appear to be broke, like Keith getting a job. If he was a big star why would he get a job at a minimum wage place? I get the idea of them living in a middle class area, because even some big stars do. I grew up in an area very much like theirs and we had some pretty successful people on our block, like several doctors and even a politician.

I have heard that , in reality, the actors who played in The Brady Bunch did not make a lot of money after the series was cancelled . Also in reality, David Cassidy did not make "a lot" of money in his heyday and got paid $600 a week for his role in the Partridge Family.

So maybe it can be said that "Art was imitating life" when it came to the Partridge Family episodes and "setup." The Partridge Family were successful to a certain extent and had a nice home (etc) but at times Keith had to borrow money from his younger brother Danny (etc). Also they drove in a run down bus to get to their concerts. They were not taken there by limousine.



http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-307150.html

http://www.classicbands.com/DavidCassidyInterview.html

It never bothered me since it had been spelled out that they'd already had lived in that home prior to the show's start. Presumably, the late Mr. Partridge had been in a prosperous enough position to buy a multi-bedroom house for his large family and ,since I don't recall any episodes when they were worried about the mortgage, it appears he'd paid if off prior to his 'sudden death' six months prior to the show's opening. Yeah, the were often seen struggling to pay day-to-day bills even after they became 'nationally' known but that's not quite the same as not even having a home of one's own.

P.S. Although, now that you bring up the subject of things 'bothersome' re the show, I do think it was a bit much that apart from the single mention of Mr. Partridge having suddenly died six months via Shirley's explanatory opening narrative prior to the show's start, at no time did any of his family ever express how it emotionally impacted them or, in fact, any memory of Mr. Partridge. It seemed as though his death only served as an obstacle thrown in their collective path that they had to find a way to become self-sufficient as a result and that was why they formed the band.


Well in real life even people who are sad over the death of a loved one dont go about being dreadful and constantly thinking about the deceased. They move on and go on to laugh again and live their lives. With a sitcom like The Partridge Family it just seems to portray the family when they are not sitting around reminiscing and talking and crying about their dad . After all, TV episodes are such that in one hour it can depict what happened in a week such as when Danny had to have his tonsils out. The show began with the doctor saying that Danny will have to undergo a tonsilectomy then there were scenes of the following days when Danny was looking for boys to replace him in the family since he thought he would die and then there was the scene in which Shirley brought him to the hospital for the surgery and the next scene the surgery was over and Danny was recovering in the hospital bed, and in a following scene it was a week after the surgery and Shirley was trying to talk Danny into singing again since he had time to recover from the surgery.Perhaps if it was a soap opera the characters would always or usually be gloomy and every scene or most scenes wou!d revolve around the characters thinking and talking about their dead dad. Yes Mr Partridge's death was to set up the situation of the family needing to set up a band to make money.
However, the closest that any episode came to having one of the Partridge characters refer to the death of Mr Partridge was when Keith's coach at school tried to talk Keith into being more like a dad to his brothers and sisters since he was the oldest male of the family . The coach asked Keith "Your mothermis a widow, isn't she?" And Keith said "Yes but what has that to do with anything?" (Or something like that).

But for that matter, it was never explained in The Brady Bunch how the Brady parents each "lost" their spouse before meeting each other, and if each spouse died, there was no mention of the emotional impact to the boys who lost their mother and the girls who lost their father.

I have heard that , in reality, the actors who played in The Brady Bunch did not make a lot of money after the series was cancelled . Also in reality, David Cassidy did not make "a lot" of money in his heyday and got paid $600 a week for his role in the Partridge Family.

So maybe it can be said that "Art was imitating life" when it came to the Partridge Family episodes and "setup." The Partridge Family were successful to a certain extent and had a nice home (etc) but at times Keith had to borrow money from his younger brother Danny (etc). Also they drove in a run down bus to get to their concerts. They were not taken there by limousine.



http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-307150.html

http://www.classicbands.com/DavidCassidyInterview.html

So true. Sitcom stars back then weren't paid what they are today.

The reason that they were broke was that Reuben Kincaid took all the money (a common practice in the music business) and gave the Partridges the crumbs, just enough to make them come back to the recording studio.

Plus, they only toured on the kids Summer Vacation. That is why they often played in Vegas, where Kincaid lost their money at the Blackjack tables.

So true. Sitcom stars back then weren't paid what they are today.


A friend of mine is an actor. Not a big name. (She does commercials, voice overs etc.She plays the part of older women. She said that she is not very familiar with a lot of TV shows of the 60s and 70s because back then she was determined to become a ballet dancer and focused completely on practicing. She did hear a bit about certain sitcoms but did not watch much TV. She heard of David Cassidy and Jack Cassidy but did not know that Jack was the father of David.).
However, she watches a bit more TV now-a-days (because she spends a lot of time at her friend's home and her friend watches TV all the time) and she told me that the actors of "The Big Bang Theory" (which is a TV show I have heard of but never watched a complete episode) get paid very big money, thousands per episode. She says it is because they are considered good actors.

"She says it is because they are considered good actors."


I always felt it was they had good agents and shows they are on have good ratings.

A friend of mine is an actor. Not a big name. (She does commercials, voice overs etc.She plays the part of older women. She said that she is not very familiar with a lot of TV shows of the 60s and 70s because back then she was determined to become a ballet dancer and focused completely on practicing. She did hear a bit about certain sitcoms but did not watch much TV. She heard of David Cassidy and Jack Cassidy but did not know that Jack was the father of David.).
However, she watches a bit more TV now-a-days (because she spends a lot of time at her friend's home and her friend watches TV all the time) and she told me that the actors of "The Big Bang Theory" (which is a TV show I have heard of but never watched a complete episode) get paid very big money, thousands per episode. She says it is because they are considered good actors.


Good acting has little to do with it, it depends on ratings.

Agree about the age of the audience. Another thing that seemed odd is that they were never able to draw a large crowd. They were supposedly a nationally famous band, yet the rooms they played to never had an audience of more than a couple hundred people. I've seen local bar bands that drew a bigger crowd.

When it comes to such things there is a lot of fictionalizing. You rarely saw the Partridges rehearsing but in real life a successful band has to rehearse constantly. The Partridge kids had time to go to school and have friendships and take part in sports, etc. Keith even played on the basketball team (I think). The episodes focused on funny adventures they had in their personal lives.
It was up to the viewing audience to have the imagination to pretend that the family mostly plays to much larger audiences of younger people most of the time and not take seriously the fact that the musical numbers that were shown on certain episodes showed small audiences of older people.

https://bradybunchreviewed.wordpress.com/

Also not to really distract from the original topic, but in a different thread, someone posted this link to a site in which each Brady Bunch episode is reviewed for things that are not explained in the plot, or things that go overlooked in the story line such as the plausibility of what is happening or being said, such as one episode in which Greg thinks he can pursue a career as a Major League baseball player after he meets his baseball hero. The website points out that Greg is about 15 or 16 in the episode and it seems that Bobby or Peter are the ones young enough to be so unrealistic.

It would be great if a website like this existed for other TV shows such as The Partridge Family. It would be great if people could submit their observations about the particularly unrealistic things in the show.

I would point out one Partridge Family episode (I think "Partridge Up A Pair Tree") in which Keith needs money to take his girlfriend out but has a problem managing his money and Danny appoints himself as Keith's financial manager. Then there are some scenes one after the other in which Keith is trying out different jobs, such as a a paper boy, a plumber's helper and a salesman. it appears that Keith spontaneously found another job as soon as he failed in the previous one.
The unrealistic thing, I think, is that ( even though the show depicted the early 1970s in a more suburban setting where kids get paper routes all the time, and there are ads in the paper for high scoolers to help plumbers and salesmen and snack shops for the summer etc) fining a job as soon as you need one back then was probably not so easy, and my own father who was a teen in the early 1900s said that it was hard to find work and he jumped on trains with a friend going from place to place to find a job.
In "Partridge Up A Pair Tree," Keith was not depicted as looking over the help wanted ads and going from place to place to find work only to be rejected because the job had been filled. It just showed him having had found the job essentially problem-free, but making a mistake that had him fired.

In reality it is a job to find a job for most people. But of course TV shows overlook other reality factors so to focus on a certain element of the plot which in this episode's case, was that Keith had to try and make money to take his girlfriend out, and his girlfriend just felt that Keith was not being honest with her for admitting that he has financial trouble.

The producer, Bob Claver, has said that they couldn't let the Partridges become too big or successful, because the audience would no longer have been able to relate to them. So they remained a minor success.

The reason that they were broke was that Reuben Kincaid took all the money (a common practice in the music business) and gave the Partridges the crumbs, just enough to make them come back to the recording studio.



Not sure where you are getting this from. Yes, Reuben was always on the lookout for a moneymaking opportunity, but I watched the show from the beginning and Reuben was their friend as well as their manager. I never saw anything that would make me conclude he was taking advantage of them at all.

I'm surprised they would make any money with those lousy songs. I mean who wants to listen to that drivel. I just can't believe I watched this show in 1970. So unbelievable and fake. I didn't like it but I watched a few seasons on Friday night along with the equally substandard Brady Bunch. When I watch the great sitcoms of the 50's and 60's and then comes Partridge Family I'm flabbergasted.

I'm surprised they would make any money with those lousy songs. I mean who wants to listen to that drivel. I just can't believe I watched this show in 1970. So unbelievable and fake. I didn't like it but I watched a few seasons on Friday night along with the equally substandard Brady Bunch. When I watch the great sitcoms of the 50's and 60's and then comes Partridge Family I'm flabbergasted.
I enjoy Partridge Family much more than Brady Bunch not only because it seems more sophisticated but also because of the music. They had some really good ones and I didn't mind they worked them into the show. The show itself could be silly sometimes though I will agree, maybe more so than some '50s/'60s shows. I don't have it on my greatest shows of all time list. But it is on my secondary favorites list so I still consider it greater than over 99% of all shows ever made.

I'm surprised they would make any money with those lousy songs. I mean who wants to listen to that drivel. I just can't believe I watched this show in 1970. So unbelievable and fake. I didn't like it but I watched a few seasons on Friday night along with the equally substandard Brady Bunch. When I watch the great sitcoms of the 50's and 60's and then comes Partridge Family I'm flabbergasted.

It can be very much a generational thing.

There are other posts here that amount to the same discussion. Whether entertainment of the 70s was really any good compared to the 50s and 60s or any other time.

The 70s were distinct for what they were.

A lot of people believe that the sitcoms of the 50s that are considered classics such as "Father Knows Best" and "Donna Reed" were also fake and unrealistic and dumbly wholesome and had a lot of cliches in the dialogue and plots and it is a wonder how such stuff was ever popular with anyone

It can be very much a generational thing.

There are other posts here that amount to the same discussion. Whether entertainment of the 70s was really any good compared to the 50s and 60s or any other time.

The 70s were distinct for what they were.
Agreed. The '70s were a time of change. I guess all decades were a time of change in some way. The Partridge Family seemed to try building off of the style of '60s comedies (bringing a '70s feel) but didn't stray too far into "All in the Family" territory, despite them airing concurrently for four years.

A lot of people believe that the sitcoms of the 50s that are considered classics such as "Father Knows Best" and "Donna Reed" were also fake and unrealistic and dumbly wholesome and had a lot of cliches in the dialogue and plots and it is a wonder how such stuff was ever popular with anyone
I think unrealistic is a word that's extremely overused. I don't like Donna Reed but not necessarily because it was unrealistic. Something about the show and characters didn't keep my attention and I don't laugh at the jokes. However, Father Knows Best I consider among the top 10 shows ever made. The worst it ever got was an occasional preachy storyline that didn't mesh great. But even then the show never relied on cliches. It was actually intelligent, different, and dynamic in situations and character reactions that kept the episodes interesting and thought-provoking.

I'll take the 70s comedies over the 60s.

Agreed. The '70s were a time of change. I guess all decades were a time of change in some way. The Partridge Family seemed to try building off of the style of '60s comedies (bringing a '70s feel) but didn't stray too far into "All in the Family" territory, despite them airing concurrently for four years.

Maybe i was too young to realize the deep elements of context to these shows back then, but in retrospect The Partridge Family does seem to have been an idea that was bridging the 60s which had just come to an end, with the early 70s which was to still have some elements of the previous decade to it, and a singing modern day family was appropriate in its own way. I recall the first TV advertisements or promotions for the show, and there were closeups of Shirley Jones and David Cassidy singing "Together (Havin' a Ball)" and it seemed enchanting and nostalgic at once. For those who remember what I do, there were snippets of one of the very first episodes, and one was "Danny And The Mob" with the closeup of Danny saying "You are squeezing my duck" and I wondered how entertaining the show would be. Decades later I realize that the music on the show was considered to be frivolous besides other negative things. But I think that the early episodes had something to them that was lost after approximately the second season. If the show had gone off the air before the third season, I think that the show would not have gone down as it did. Of course it means it Jumped the Shark.

I think unrealistic is a word that's extremely overused. I don't like Donna Reed but not necessarily because it was unrealistic. Something about the show and characters didn't keep my attention and I don't laugh at the jokes. However, Father Knows Best I consider among the top 10 shows ever made. The worst it ever got was an occasional preachy storyline that didn't mesh great. But even then the show never relied on cliches. It was actually intelligent, different, and dynamic in situations and character reactions that kept the episodes interesting and thought-provoking.

Yes "unrealistic" is overused and yet nothing else can actually take its place. You cant escape the fact that most shows were unrealistic.
There were plots in Father Knows Best that are not likely to happen in any family, of course the same is true with Partridge Family and Brady Bunch and also throw in Please Don't Eat The Dasies and other shows with children or teens in them.
I think Father Knows Best was NOT particularly intelligent , though it was not particularly dumb, but had a formula like that of "Superman" in that at the beginning there is a problem and by the end the problem was solved by the main character(s). It did strictly stick to old fashioned, traditional family situations even though the two daughters were depicted as being "Bobby Soxers." I think that the series lasted from when the youngest cast member was a little girl of about 8 to a teenager of about 12 in its entire run. I think that when child characters age that much it automatically means that the show will have Jumped The Shark when the age difference becomes really noticeable.

Lauren Chapin the young actress who played "Kitten" went on to have a very horrifically tragic life .

Recording artists don't earn as much money as people think. The money is in live performances, and as the kids were in school for most of the year, their live concerts were limited to the Summer, so they were limited to State Fairs and such, although they did a turn in Vegas which was odd.

Correct! I did watch TPF like all my friends when it first aired and everyone was in love with David. I wasn't a Cassidy fan as I thought he was fake. I did like Johnny Crawford-Rifleman, Kurt Russell-Jamie McPheeters and dare I say it Jack Wild. So I did watch TPF and BB but wasn't a fan. Course back in those days there weren't a lot of channels to watch. I did think Danny was very funny as I do now and saved the show. Sort of like Eddie Haskell in the later seasons of Leave it to Beaver.

"Danny" saved the show?
I think that he was an accessory but it was Rubin Kinkaid who was really funny.

....furthermore, the "Danny " character relied a lot on being a young kid , a pre-teen, who was wise beyond his years. When he reached 12 he was already taller less boyish, and did not look like a pre-pubescent anymore.
Even David Cassidy wrote in his autobiography that Danny's antics were no longer funny but annoying when he aged into his teens. He was basically made to be the same mischievous wise cracking kid up until the show was cancelled. One might think that "Chris" would have been made to take over Danny.

All the characters were "fake" since they were a Hollywood creation just like the characters of The Brady Bunch .

....furthermore, the "Danny " character relied a lot on being a young kid , a pre-teen, who was wise beyond his years. When he reached 12 he was already taller less boyish, and did not look like a pre-pubescent anymore.
Even David Cassidy wrote in his autobiography that Danny's antics were no longer funny but annoying when he aged into his teens. He was basically made to be the same mischievous wise cracking kid up until the show was cancelled. One might think that "Chris" would have been made to take over Danny.

All the characters were "fake" since they were a Hollywood creation just like the characters of The Brady Bunch .

Well, to be accurate, Bonaduce was 14 when the show went off the air, as was his character, Danny. I think he was still able to be "precocious" at that age, honestly. He was probably a freshman in high school, not exactly a very worldly position in life.

As to Chris, while Brian Foster was a better actor than Jeremy Gelkwaks, I doubt he would have had the same appeal as Bonaduce. Also, it would have been a bit jarring to suddenly transform this quiet, sweet little kid into a kind of "Danny, Jr."


Had it gone longer, yes, it would not have had the "cute" factor. I think that's why they tried the Ricky Seagall character, because by the last year even the young kids, Chris and Tracy, were getting older and they needed a real "kid" character.


The results were, shall we say, less than successful.

I think adding Ricky was "jump the shark" worthy. They ditched him relatively quickly, but maybe by then everyone had tuned out. Egad, that kid couldn't sing! If they HAD to have him, at least they could have dubbed in another voice who could carry a tune.

I think adding Ricky was "jump the shark" worthy. They ditched him relatively quickly, but maybe by then everyone had tuned out. Egad, that kid couldn't sing! If they HAD to have him, at least they could have dubbed in another voice who could carry a tune.

Yeah, I think the whole idea must have been that he was a very cutekid who would just charm everybody to death, and the fact that he could sing AT ALL was some icing on the cake.

But the show just ground to a halt whenever he came on. I notice he's never mentioned in any of the cast reunions or interviews. I guess like Cousin Oliver, he was something they tried to do to keep the show afloat and it was not only "too little, too late", it was just wrongheaded.

Well, to be accurate, Bonaduce was 14 when the show went off the air, as was his character, Danny. I think he was still able to be "precocious" at that age, honestly. He was probably a freshman in high school, not exactly a very worldly position in life.

Yes , and yet if you watch certain episodes like "Pin It On Danny" (which was during the fourth season when the series was nearing its cancellation) you can see that the lines he is given is not for a teenager. The plot was about Danny giving his mom a brooch he literally found, and then there is an ad in the Lost And Found about a missing brooch so he buys a different brooch at the jewelry store to give his mom, and tries to return the original one to the rightful owner, but it turns out that the original brooch was not the one reported as missing in the Lost And Found. So in one scene he is talking with Keith and Lori and says that even though the jewelry store does not accept returns or refunds he will go back to the jewelry store and start stomping his feet and crying and say that they "Took advantage of a kid."


As to Chris, while Brian Foster was a better actor than Jeremy Gelkwaks, I doubt he would have had the same appeal as Bonaduce. Also, it would have been a bit jarring to suddenly transform this quiet, sweet little kid into a kind of "Danny, Jr."

Yes it would have been an adjustment for viewers since the show was so centered around Danny.
I might have said this in a different thread, but throughout the series I thought I was Danny's age, and as far as the character he played, yes, But I later found out that Danny Bonaduce is an entire year older than I am and furthermore, episodes are often filmed a year before they are actually broadcast, so it is why it seemed to me that I was his exact age or maybe even a bit older. What was even more surprising is that "Chris" seemed younger than me by about a year or maybe two, and I now guess it had to do with the shows being filmed a year previous to being broadcast as well as the lines that the younger actors were given, but I later found out that Brian Forster is 5 months older than I am.
I used to think that I was too old to say some of the cute juvenile things that Danny ( the TV character) said on the show so why is Danny continuously so much like the 10-year-old he started out as on the series?


Had it gone longer, yes, it would not have had the "cute" factor. I think that's why they tried the Ricky Seagall character, because by the last year even the young kids, Chris and Tracy, were getting older and they needed a real "kid" character.
.

Yes, but Danny was still being the main kid on the show no matter what.
It seems to me that he might have "saved the show" for a certain amount of time but then it was obvious that the show was overdoing the plots being centered around something that Danny does.

I notice he's never mentioned in any of the cast reunions or interviews. I guess like Cousin Oliver, he was something they tried to do to keep the show afloat and it was not only "too little, too late", it was just wrongheaded.

BTW, was "Cousin Oliver' ever mentioned on any Brady Bunch reunion show?
Was he mentioned in that horrific "Brady Bunch Variety Hour" or the equally terrible , "The Brady Brides" etc?

BTW, was "Cousin Oliver' ever mentioned on any Brady Bunch reunion show?
Was he mentioned in that horrific "Brady Bunch Variety Hour" or the equally terrible , "The Brady Brides" etc?

I know he was referenced in the film parodies, at least. As to any other appearances, I am not sure.

I think adding Ricky was "jump the shark" worthy. They ditched him relatively quickly, but maybe by then everyone had tuned out. Egad, that kid couldn't sing! If they HAD to have him, at least they could have dubbed in another voice who could carry a tune.

He was much worse than Cousin Oliver on the Brady Bunch. His singing was terrible. But the lyrics to his songs were so bad they were actually funny. I could just imagine the Partridge Family themselves singing those songs.

He was much worse than Cousin Oliver on the Brady Bunch. His singing was terrible. But the lyrics to his songs were so bad they were actually funny. I could just imagine the Partridge Family themselves singing those songs.

Ricky was baadddd. I hated him. His singing was terrible, his character was crappily written in and just everything about him sunk the show.

Ricky was baadddd. I hated him. His singing was terrible, his character was crappily written in and just everything about him sunk the show.


Wow. I find it strange that on this entire site a lot of people have very strong and personally-taken feelings about the Ricky Stevens character and the child actor/singer who played him (Ricky Seagall).
His singing was not trained or developed. It was not a good idea to have him as a regular character singing songs that should be on Saturday morning kiddies TV shows even if the viewing audience were largely kids and teens. I don't think the singing was really "bad" rather than embarrassing and uninteresting and not to be taken seriously.
But the fact is that the show had taken a turn for the worse at least a season before Ricky Seagall was added. The plots and the music were not as good as at the beginning, but The Partridge Family (with the possible exception of The Brady Bunch) was the one most prominent or most recognized example of a show having had been on the air beyond the writers' and producers' ability to come up with good plots (and music) for each, or most , of the episodes. At least it has been given that distinction.

The Partridge Family as a sitcom with music, became old and stale very soon after its debut on TV, approximately after the first half of its entire run. Perhaps only in retrospect can it be realized.
Of course there were a few episodes during the "worse half" that were funny and nicely done for the type of sitcom the show was.

A lot of people say that Danny was the star of the show as far as being the one who created adventures and mishaps for everyone. Yes, but after a while, his impishness was stretched out and overplayed too.