I apologize if this thread has been posted before. Why did John Amos leave Good Times? Was he fired or he left on his own. Fights? I saw the episodes where he was killed. I just why he was written out?

John was fired for fighting with the producers. He felt that the show played into black stereotypes and that the JJ character was a buffoon.

I wouldn't of killed off john amos character I would have replaced him with Hal Williams aka Smitty an Luster Jenkins he was more like james but I would have replaced his character just like the original vivian was replaced with a new Vivian from the.fresh prince

I apologize if this thread has been posted before. Why did John Amos leave Good Times? Was he fired or he left on his own. Fights? I saw the episodes where he was killed. I just why he was written out?

Fired for revealing what happened behind the scenes in Ebony Magazine

Fired for revealing what happened behind the scenes in Ebony Magazine


I bought that issue of Ebony magazine at a flea market in the mid-1990s and somehow, someway lost the darn thing.

I never watched Good Times but the episode when he died stuck with me. I mean how tragic. Wasnt there some big party or something for James and then Florida answered the phone and found out he was dead?

I never watched Good Times but the episode when he died stuck with me. I mean how tragic. Wasnt there some big party or something for James and then Florida answered the phone and found out he was dead?

Yeah, there was a big party. Florida found out through a telegram.

wasn't he killed in a car accident or something like that?

wasn't he killed in a car accident or something like that?
Yes.

John Amos was called by Norman Lear, and said Norman told him he had good news and bad news, good news that Good Times was being renewed, bad that he was being let go.John hung up briefly afterwards.

John Amos was called by Norman Lear, and said Norman told him he had good news and bad news, good news that Good Times was being renewed, bad that he was being let go.John hung up briefly afterwards.
that's not what I heard; I heard he left because he didn't like the direction the show was taking.

that's not what I heard; I heard he left because he didn't like the direction the show was taking.

He was fired, it's on youtube, look it up, he described what happened.

http://www.lipstickalley.com/showthread.php/882526-John-Amos-Says-He-Was-Kicked-Off-Good-Times-Because-He-Didn%E2%80%99t-Agree-With-the-Shucking-and-Jiving

When many people think about the most memorable moments in black television history, the first storyline to pop into their minds is when Florida Evans read a letter informing her that her husband, James Evans, had died.

And of course there’s the scene when Florida had her breakdown in the kitchen, when she could no longer play strong in her time of mourning. Florida’s “Damn, damn, damn” is still relevant in today’s pop culture and memes.

What many don’t realize is that John Amos was just about as shocked as Florida when he learned that he was no longer on the show. Back then, Amos was vocal about his issues with the show, and it seemed to have rubbed the show’s creator, Norman Lear, the wrong way.

In an interview with the American Archive of Television, Amos discussed why he received the boot from the show: “I felt that with two other younger children, one of whom aspired to become a Supreme Court justice—that would be Ralph Carter, or Michael—and the other, BernNadette Stanis ... she aspired to become a surgeon. And the differences I had with the producers of the show ... I felt too much emphasis was being put on J.J. and his chicken hat and saying ‘dy-no-mite’ every third page, when just as much emphasis and mileage could have been gotten out of my other two children ... ,” Amos stated.

So apparently, from Amos’ standpoint, there was too much shucking and jiving on the show, and he didn’t want to tolerate it any more. He also states that he “wasn’t the most diplomatic guy” back then and producers got tired of having their “lives threatened over jokes.”

Just as Florida shockingly received notice that her husband had died, so, too, Amos received a call out of the blue that his character was no longer needed. Amos stated that during the show’s hiatus, Lear called him.

“Big John, I got some good news and some bad news. What do you want to hear first?” Amos said Lear asked him.

“Hey, it’s your dime, you made the call,” Amos replied.

It was then that Lear told him that they were being picked up for another season, which wasn’t a surprise to Amos.

“You want the bad news?” Lear asked.

“Sure, how bad can it be?” Amos asked.

“You won’t be with us,” Lear responded.

Amos said he was shocked but not surprised, since he had already been labeled a “disruptive element.”

When asked by Lear if he wanted to say something, he simply said no and hung up.

Once Amos left the show, there was definitely a missing element. Personally, even while watching repeats when I was younger, I seem to remember asking myself what happened with James Evans, and eventually I stopped watching altogether.

Amos was a force to be reckoned with on the show, and apparently, because of his personality and the fact that he realized the show was making a coonery out of the family, he couldn’t be a part of it any more. He stuck to his guns, and it eventually got him fired.

http://www.theroot.com/blogs/the_grapevine/2015/06/john_amos_says_he_was_kicked_off_good_times_because_he_didn_t_agree_with.html

He talks about Good Times from 49:00 to 53:00 on http://www.emmytvlegends.org/interviews/people/john-amos#

Its such a dicey situation, with so many moving parts at the time. The interesting thing is that BOTH Esther Rolle and John Amos complained. So it wasn't just Amos all by himself with this issue of JJ the Bafoon. Its has evolved over time to be perceived that only John Amos - all by himself - ranted and complained over the character or JJ. If you think of it, Ester Rolle probably felt even more frustrated since the show was HERS to begin with, not Jimmie Walker nor anyone for that matter. Esther Rolle expected to have the biting one-liners, the long monologues, and the sassy comedic jokes. Her lines were probably cut more than anyones in order to expand the JJ comedy jokes.

Janet DuBois spoke a little bit on Esther Rolle many years later, stating that Esther Rolle was very territorial about the show, the scripts and even casting. Apparently, she was somewhat shady with Janet DuBois and the producers for casting Janet DuBois without her approval. DuBois hinted that Rolle apparently got over the casting decision I am assuming eventually forged a decent working relationship with Janet DuBois. But Esther did initially disagree with the casting choice of Janet - or at least she felt she should have had some say-so in the choice.

But getting back on track, I can totally understand actors - especially trained black actors coming out of the 50s and 60s eras of Black charicatures and negative images so prevalent- being especially sensitive to negative Black images. Let's face it, JJ was a bafoon and clown, no doubt. JJ could not read, he had majorly exaggerated facial expressions especially with lips and eyes, he basically flunked out of school, and he dressed like no one would really dress, including in the hood. And all of those flaws were magnified and pointed out in the writing, EVERY episode. But its important to acknowledge that white shows also had a clown or comic relief character - someone to take the pie so to speak. So I suppose the question becomes, is the clowning and bafoonery done at the expense of the integrity of the plot and to the detriment of using the other characters? In the case of the JJ character, probably so.

Ralph Carter aka Michael Evans, was supposed to be the breakout character. That is very clear to see in the first 5 or 6 episodes of the first season. He had the long monologues, he had the one-liners and the comebacks, and the smart insightful social commentary. He was supposed to emerge from the show as a "child star." Everyone admits that now, including Norman Lear and the producers first season. But when the JJ character took off mid-way into season one the entire cast and crew found themselves changing up tremendously. And the producers and directors flipped the script in a major way. Look at the first 5 or 6 episodes of season one, and compare them to the second half of season 1 and most of Season 2. Huge shift in how the lines are being delivered and how the comedy is being conveyed, mostly by JJ. In the first few episodes, all the kids had the jokes. By the end of season 2, Michael and Thelma rarely did jokes. Their characters were played pretty "straight" laced, and they just fed or set up for the JJ punch line, or they reacted to a JJ joke. That's a huge thing to absorb by a cast who, up to that point, was told something different about how the show would take off, and how the "ensemble" would be used.

Esther Rolle and John Amos complained of this. Ralph Carter was too young to complain, but I'm sure he saw in hindsight how his character was seriously diluted or moved a little bit more to the background. Thelma as well, but maybe not as much as the Michael character.

I think the part that goes unspoken and may be the true underlying tension is that Jimmie Walker took advantage of the situation, even writing some of the jokes with the staff writers and getting his buddies hired on as comic writers. He was not interested in advancing the show, or the Evans family, he was interested in advancing his career as a comic, nothing more, nothing less. He will tell you that now.

While I do stick up for Amos' point of view on the JJ character being a bafoon, there is no doubt that the JJ character took off. There is no way around that fact. The producers would have been foolish not to capitalize off of the character. And let's face it, Amos was hired to act, not write scripts. But then again, Carole O'Conner, Henry Winkler all bullied the writers and producers when they didn't like a script or wanted to change it. They shut down production, demanded more money, insisted on writing credits, basically everything Amos did. And like Amos, they felt they could get away with it because they thought of themselves as the, or one of "the stars" of the show. I'm sure they were labelled as "disruptive" just like Amos, but in their cases, the producers decided to deal with it. In the case of Amos, they axed him.

I say all this to say - I see both sides of the situation. Not necessarily any right or wrong point of view. I understand Amos' side (integrity) and I understand the writers/producer side (easy money and go with the proven comedy formula that is working).

But I can tell you this much, Amos is at peace and learned from the situation. I question that Jimmie Walker is in a better place. He seems bitter, somewhat shameful, in denial, defensive and in avoidance of discussing his time with Good Times. I read his book, and he does not speak fondly of his time with Good Times. He gives no credit to the cast, barely mentions them or acknowledges their talent. He only see the show through selfish eyes. He gives credit to no one or nothing else but himself on that show.

Esther Rolle was the star of "Good Times". The series was a spin-off of "Maude", and created specifically for Esther. Rolle's ... well...ROLE...:)....differed substantially than that of John Amos who was basically just another actor in the series. Rolle did voice her concerns quite openly and honestly, but the fact was, Walker was already clearly defined as the breakout star.

This type of thing has occurred many times through the history of television. An actor and/or character becomes the main focus of a series, although that was not the original intent. When you deal with actors who have to deal with fragile, out of control egos. It goes with the territory.

Janet DuBois was born in 1946 (according to sources anyway), Rolle was born in 1920. Rolle had concerns that audiences would not believe DuBois was the same age as her (Rolle was old enough to be DuBois' mother!) Interestingly, age differences didn't seem to be a problem on that show, since Rolle was 19 years older than Amos and Walker was only 8 years younger than Amos. But of course, who knows, since actors lie about their age all the time.

Hmmm. I hate to sound mean, but I think Ester Rolle didn't want someone as pretty as Janet to be the neighbor. Had to be. Like you said, she had no complaints about her age difference with John Amos, her husband. So why would the age difference matter w/r/t her neighbor?

I think there were virtuous and ego-driven reasons for Rolle and Amos balking at the JJ character. I think they wanted more lines and to be more visible on the show. I also think they viewed the writers and producers as going waaay overboard with the bafoonery of the JJ character.

Hmmm. I hate to sound mean, but I think Ester Rolle didn't want someone as pretty as Janet to be the neighbor. Had to be. Like you said, she had no complaints about her age difference with John Amos, her husband. So why would the age difference matter w/r/t her neighbor?

I think there were virtuous and ego-driven reasons for Rolle and Amos balking at the JJ character. I think they wanted more lines and to be more visible on the show. I also think they viewed the writers and producers as going waaay overboard with the bafoonery of the JJ character.

Who knows. DuBois was much younger and prettier than Rolle. That can be a sore spot for any woman, let's face it. :)

I think Ester Rolle was intended to be the star, but i didn't turn out that way.

The proof is in the pudding. Go back and look at the pilot episode. That is clearly what the show was intended to be. Esther was the star, disciplining the sometimes mischievous kids, loving and supporting a husband getting hit with hard knocks, having the temporary social outlet of her best friend and neighbor, and just generally holding it all together. JJ was not the star in the pilot. If any kid was the star, it was Michael, in the pilot.

As the season progressed, the other characters were given story lines, but Esther Rolle had the dramatic monologue or she delivered the moral punchlines. By the time the first season was over, she was delivering less and less monologues. All the characters got more involved, but JJ's slap stick antics clearly became a good 5-8 minutes of every show. And no question, that is part of what made the show become popular.

All I am saying is that it was not the original formula intended for the show.

While I completely cosign with Mr. Amos's and the late Miss Rolle's frustration re how the show's original, thought-provoking progressive ensemble dynamics were stilted if not altogether destroyed re turning the show into a LAFF-A-MINUTE J J Dyno-MITE show, by Mr. Amos's own admission, he'd threatened violence on the show's writers [which Miss Rolle does NOT seem to have done], so, as talented as he is and vital as his character was the to show, I'm sorry but I agree with Mr. Lear's decision to fire Mr. Amos. One can't expect to continue staying employed after threatening violence to a coworker no matter how frustrated one may be with them or even if one's POV is perfectly logical and correct.

I think Ester Rolle was intended to be the star, but i didn't turn out that way.

The proof is in the pudding. Go back and look at the pilot episode. That is clearly what the show was intended to be. Esther was the star, disciplining the sometimes mischievous kids, loving and supporting a husband getting hit with hard knocks, having the temporary social outlet of her best friend and neighbor, and just generally holding it all together. JJ was not the star in the pilot. If any kid was the star, it was Michael, in the pilot.

As the season progressed, the other characters were given story lines, but Esther Rolle had the dramatic monologue or she delivered the moral punchlines. By the time the first season was over, she was delivering less and less monologues. All the characters got more involved, but JJ's slap stick antics clearly became a good 5-8 minutes of every show. And no question, that is part of what made the show become popular.

All I am saying is that it was not the original formula intended for the show.

I still think James was the star because his absence was more noticeable than JJ's and Florida's during season 3

I still think James was the star because his absence was more noticeable than JJ's and Florida's during season 3

I'm sure the same thing would have happened if instead of James it was Florida was killed off with no chance to return.
The problem is they couldn't replace a guy like Amos. He played the character too well. Not just a stereotypical sitcom dad.

And not having a father around it forced the show to change direction. And things went down hill.

I'm sure the same thing would have happened if instead of James it was Florida was killed off with no chance to return.
The problem is they couldn't replace a guy like Amos. He played the character too well. Not just a stereotypical sitcom dad.

And not having a father around it forced the show to change direction. And things went down hill.


Once Florida left, they should have gotten rid of Willona

For me, the show ended and was no longer "Good Times" once John Amos was gone.

They should have kept James and gotten rid of JJ. James was a much better character.. JJ's character was a waste of time.. They made him out to be a clown.

They should have kept James and gotten rid of JJ. James was a much better character.. JJ's character was a waste of time.. They made him out to be a clown.

I wonder now if it was somewhat unfair to single out JJ for being a "buffoon" (or remotely goofy, silly or over the top instead of "stoic and deathly serious") type character? To put things into perspective there’s buffoonery in almost every sitcom, regardless of race. So it isn't unique to Good Times. Heck, Jim Carrey made a whole career out of buffoonery as did Tom Green.