Starz Encore Black aired the series finale ("End of the Rainbow") yesterday, and I thought about how Good Times ended just before the 1970s were out. I'm guessing that Good Times theoretically, could've lasted a few more seasons had it not been for such events that caused viewers to flee like killing James off (due to John Amos being fired in real life at the end of the third season) and Esther Rolle leaving during the fifth season (its second to last).

None the less, I do wonder if Good Times could've survived the transition to the '80s? Shows like that along with MASH, All in the Family, Maude, Sanford and Son, and The Jeffersons were very "current" (I know that MASH took place during the Korean War, but it was really, a commentary on Vietnam), edgy and political.

Once the '80s rolled around and Ronald Reagan took office, the American population made a decidedly conservative turn. I think that's in part why the shows that I mentioned such as The Jeffersons and All in the Family (when it became Archie Bunker's Place) became less political and more PC.

You could make an argument that the mass of people lost interest in Black civil rights and equality, or at least the people who were always hostile towards them became ascendant. So in some ways, the TV situation was just a predictor of social and political trends.

With that being said, I just don't think that a show like Good Times would've made it on air post-Cosby Show. Good Times represented in terms of black culture, what mass culture turned on at the time. An urban, ghetto, housing-project family that represented society's negatives (regardless of the fact that the show was about basically good people struggling to be good people in adverse circumstances). When The Cosby Show made it on air in 1984, it was the black experience that fit the new mass zeitgeist. Upscale, educated and living a lifestyle that even white people could aspire to.

Good Times even with the behind the scenes turmoil probably would've eventually run its course sooner or later. There's only so many times that you can watch, with interest, as they seem so have a chance to get out of the ghetto and have some flip decision (or policy) smash all their hopes to bits. It's a one- or two-joke show. If you can't transform the show and find a new audience or vehicle, the show will likely run its course (as previously alluded to) ultimately.

Starz Encore Black aired the series finale ("End of the Rainbow") yesterday, and I thought about how Good Times ended just before the 1970s were out. I'm guessing that Good Times theoretically, could've lasted a few more seasons had it not been for such events that caused viewers to flee like killing James off (due to John Amos being fired in real life at the end of the third season) and Esther Rolle leaving during the fifth season (it's second to last).

None the less, I do wonder if Good Times could've survived the transition to the '80s? Shows like that along with MASH, All in the Family, Maude, Sanford and Son, and The Jeffersons were very "current" (I know that MASH took place during the Korean War, but it was really, a commentary on Vietnam), edgy and political.

Once the '80s rolled around and Ronald Reagan took office, the American population made a decidedly conservative turn. I think that's in part why the shows that I mentioned such as The Jeffersons and All in the Family (when it became Archie Bunker's Place) became less political and more PC.

You could make an argument that the mass of people lost interest in Black civil rights and equality, or at least the people who were always hostile towards them became ascendant. So in some ways, the TV situation was just a predictor of social and political trends.

With that being said, I just don't think that a show like Good Times would've made it on air post-Cosby Show. Good Times represented in terms of black culture, what mass culture turned on at the time. An urban, ghetto, housing-project family that represented society's negatives (regardless of the fact that the show was about basically good people struggling to be good people in adverse circumstances). When The Cosby Show made it on air in 1984, it was the black experience that fit the new mass zeitgeist. Upscale, educated and living a lifestyle that even white people could aspire to.

Good Times even with the behind the scenes turmoil probably would've eventually run its course sooner or later. There's only so many times that you can watch, with interest, as they seem so have a chance to get out of the ghetto and have some flip decision (or policy) smash all their hopes to bits. It's a one- or two-joke show. If you can't transform the show and find a new audience or vehicle, the show will likely run its course (as previously alluded to) ultimately.


I think it could have still been relevant because by 1978/79 the show was not as political and didn't have episodes revolving around unemployment and being poor. Plus it was still people living in the projects in the 1980's so not sure why it would not have been able to transition to the 80's like all the other lear shows.

Starz Encore Black aired the series finale ("End of the Rainbow") yesterday, and I thought about how Good Times ended just before the 1970s were out. I'm guessing that Good Times theoretically, could've lasted a few more seasons had it not been for such events that caused viewers to flee like killing James off (due to John Amos being fired in real life at the end of the third season) and Esther Rolle leaving during the fifth season (it's second to last).

None the less, I do wonder if Good Times could've survived the transition to the '80s? Shows like that along with MASH, All in the Family, Maude, Sanford and Son, and The Jeffersons were very "current" (I know that MASH took place during the Korean War, but it was really, a commentary on Vietnam), edgy and political.

Once the '80s rolled around and Ronald Reagan took office, the American population made a decidedly conservative turn. I think that's in part why the shows that I mentioned such as The Jeffersons and All in the Family (when it became Archie Bunker's Place) became less political and more PC.

You could make an argument that the mass of people lost interest in Black civil rights and equality, or at least the people who were always hostile towards them became ascendant. So in some ways, the TV situation was just a predictor of social and political trends.

With that being said, I just don't think that a show like Good Times would've made it on air post-Cosby Show. Good Times represented in terms of black culture, what mass culture turned on at the time. An urban, ghetto, housing-project family that represented society's negatives (regardless of the fact that the show was about basically good people struggling to be good people in adverse circumstances). When The Cosby Show made it on air in 1984, it was the black experience that fit the new mass zeitgeist. Upscale, educated and living a lifestyle that even white people could aspire to.

Good Times even with the behind the scenes turmoil probably would've eventually run its course sooner or later. There's only so many times that you can watch, with interest, as they seem so have a chance to get out of the ghetto and have some flip decision (or policy) smash all their hopes to bits. It's a one- or two-joke show. If you can't transform the show and find a new audience or vehicle, the show will likely run its course (as previously alluded to) ultimately.

Good Times could have been more edgier such as having a drug dealer as a regular character, showing James getting a better job and even Florida taking some training courses so she could work. I can also see them getting a house in a blue collar area with Michael still living there while he was in school to save money.

Starz Encore Black aired the series finale ("End of the Rainbow") yesterday, and I thought about how Good Times ended just before the 1970s were out. I'm guessing that Good Times theoretically, could've lasted a few more seasons had it not been for such events that caused viewers to flee like killing James off (due to John Amos being fired in real life at the end of the third season) and Esther Rolle leaving during the fifth season (it's second to last).

None the less, I do wonder if Good Times could've survived the transition to the '80s? Shows like that along with MASH, All in the Family, Maude, Sanford and Son, and The Jeffersons were very "current" (I know that MASH took place during the Korean War, but it was really, a commentary on Vietnam), edgy and political.

Once the '80s rolled around and Ronald Reagan took office, the American population made a decidedly conservative turn. I think that's in part why the shows that I mentioned such as The Jeffersons and All in the Family (when it became Archie Bunker's Place) became less political and more PC.

You could make an argument that the mass of people lost interest in Black civil rights and equality, or at least the people who were always hostile towards them became ascendant. So in some ways, the TV situation was just a predictor of social and political trends.

With that being said, I just don't think that a show like Good Times would've made it on air post-Cosby Show. Good Times represented in terms of black culture, what mass culture turned on at the time. An urban, ghetto, housing-project family that represented society's negatives (regardless of the fact that the show was about basically good people struggling to be good people in adverse circumstances). When The Cosby Show made it on air in 1984, it was the black experience that fit the new mass zeitgeist. Upscale, educated and living a lifestyle that even white people could aspire to.

Good Times even with the behind the scenes turmoil probably would've eventually run its course sooner or later. There's only so many times that you can watch, with interest, as they seem so have a chance to get out of the ghetto and have some flip decision (or policy) smash all their hopes to bits. It's a one- or two-joke show. If you can't transform the show and find a new audience or vehicle, the show will likely run its course (as previously alluded to) ultimately.


Interesting theory, TMC. Personally, I think "Good Times" had simply run its course by '79. Given the turmoil that occurred behind the scenes (practically since its debut five years earlier), I seriously doubt it would've survived into the 1980s. As you mentioned, "Good Times" was interesting for a while (its first two seasons), with viewers tuning in each week to see the Evans clan sticking together and remaining a family against all odds; the series ultimately evolved into a one- or two-joke sitcom (its last four seasons) and its original premise was destroyed. Eventually, audiences began changing the channel, the ratings plummeted, and "Good Times" was cancelled.

Even curmudgeons like Archie Bunker and George Jefferson had mellowed considerably by the time Reagan entered the Oval Office..."All In The Family" had transitioned into "Archie Bunker's Place" (following the departures of Rob Reiner, Sally Struthers, and Jean Stapleton), and "The Jeffersons" evolved from its original conception (as both a spin-off and companion series to "All In The Family") into an ensemble--and more mainstream--sitcom, similar to "M*A*S*H," "Barney Miller," "Taxi," and "WKRP In Cincinnati." And "One Day At A Time" began to focus more on Bonnie Franklin and Valerie Bertinelli's respective characters (Ann Romano and Barbara Cooper, respectively) after Mackenzie Phillips (Julie Cooper) headed to rehab during its fifth and sixth seasons (1979-80 and 1980-81, respectively).

Back to "Good Times" for a minute...I was surprised that CBS renewed it for a sixth season in '78...even Esther Rolle's return--she bailed out after season four and was absent during season five--did little to reverse "Good Times'" dwindling ratings. It's also easy to see why John Amos departed at the end of season three...Amos and Rolle had grown dissatisfied and disillusioned with the direction "Good Times" was traveling down; Jimmie Walker (J.J.) had basically evolved into "the black Fonzie" (ABC's period sitcom "Happy Days" was scheduled directly opposite "Good Times" [during the 1974-75 and 1975-76 seasons], and had gained enormous momentum) by that time, leaving the supporting cast--Amos, Rolle, BernNadette Stanis, Ralph Carter, and Ja'net DuBois--in the lurch. Even Norman Lear began focusing more on other projects ("Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman" and the aforementioned "One Day At A Time") than listening to, and dealing with, Amos and Rolle's ongoing pleas to transform J.J. into a far more positive role model for young African-Americans to admire and identity with.

It's also unfortunate that "What's Happening!!" and "Sanford and Son" didn't survive into the 1980s, either, due to their respective off-camera, backstage, behind-the-scenes troubles. (I'm talking about the original programs, and not their 1980s revivals ["What's Happening Now!!" and "Sanford," respectively].)

Good Times could have been more edgier such as having a drug dealer as a regular character, showing James getting a better job and even Florida taking some training courses so she could work. I can also see them getting a house in a blue collar area with Michael still living there while he was in school to save money.

I enthusiastically concur, GSU2004! "Good Times" could've added a charismatic but violent drug pusher to the cast (similar to Clifton Powell's character, charismatic but violent drug lord Andre Thompson, on the '90s sitcom "Roc") during its six-season run (1974-79); he would've been a recurring, but not regular, character (but his presence would always be evident). Granted, that would've made "Good Times" a more edgier--and more interesting--program for its time (it would've been more of a dramedy instead of a sitcom), but I doubt that CBS would've allowed Lear to push the envelope THAT far. I also agree that James would've gained a higher-paying, full-time job and Florida would be also be employed, albeit on a part time basis, to help balance the family's monthly budget (now that the kids were on the cusp of adulthood).

I agree with the original premise; by 1980, you weren't seeing as many serious topics being dealt with on TV. There were exceptions; WKRP and Taxi did some serious episodes, but by and large the public seemed to want easily palatable stories and not so much controversy.

The country as a whole had taken a conservative turn, and Good Times really couldn't have fit well into that world. By then, you rarely saw working class people on TV. Just about everyone had at least a middle class or upper middle class job; no one ever seemed to be struggling financially, which was a large part Good Times' theme.

I agree with the original premise; by 1980, you weren't seeing as many serious topics being dealt with on TV. There were exceptions; WKRP and Taxi did some serious episodes, but by and large the public seemed to want easily palatable stories and not so much controversy.

The country as a whole had taken a conservative turn, and Good Times really couldn't have fit well into that world. By then, you rarely saw working class people on TV. Just about everyone had at least a middle class or upper middle class job; no one ever seemed to be struggling financially, which was a large part Good Times' theme.

I enthusiastically concur, Retro4Life. By the early 1980s, the state of television--and America as a whole--had changed completely...the days of relevance were long gone, having been replaced by decadence and debauchery (as evidenced by the ongoing shenanigans on the hit primetime serials "Dallas" and "Dynasty"). Other than "Lou Grant" and "Hill Street Blues," there weren't a lot of programs on the tube that were exploring serious topics like teen pregnancy, civil rights, and various forms of addiction (be it alcohol, narcotics, gambling, or sex). We were now in the era of "check-your-brain-at-the-door" entertainment, with programs like "Mork & Mindy," "The Dukes Of Hazzard," "Three's Company," "The Love Boat," "Fantasy Island," "Charlie's Angels," "CHiPs," "B.J. and the Bear," and "The Misadventures of Sheriff Lobo" offering viewers an opportunity to escape from the ongoing issues of the day (double-digit unemployment, energy conservation, record-breaking inflation, a rapidly increasing deficit, skyrocketing crime statistics, and the hostage crisis in Iran).

The fifth season should have been the end of it.If there was anyway Amos could have been wrote back into the script,which I doubt there would have been,that would have been the only thing to save it,since the departure of Rolle herself ,it was no longer a true family the way the show started with,it was now,at best,a stereotype.It could of transitioned to 1980 if Amos and Rolle were both on the show the entire run as a true family and not what it ended up being.Sanford and Son did not last because Lamont left the show.Lou Grant only lasted until the fall of 1982,so this would have been about how long Good Times would have lasted,if the whole cast remained on the show.

It ended FAR too late. The shows after James' death were horribly unfunny and lame. Then when Florida left it was completely on life support. Went on about 3 years too long.

It ended FAR too late. The shows after James' death were horribly unfunny and lame. Then when Florida left it was completely on life support. Went on about 3 years too long.

Respectfully disagree. While I didn't like James' death, it did open up some new possibilities for the show in terms of the family's struggle to survive. I'll agree that the "after James" years are not as strong, but they were certainly not worthless.

Respectfully disagree. While I didn't like James' death, it did open up some new possibilities for the show in terms of the family's struggle to survive. I'll agree that the "after James" years are not as strong, but they were certainly not worthless.


Everything that happened in season 6 for Florida should have happened in season 4 like her getting a job.

Well,said!!!!!

John Amos killed of the show killed the show it was never the same. John Amos character held that show in my opinion the struggles he went through how the working man always getting screwed. John Amos with Esther Rolle character not seeing eye to eye on things at times. Jimmie Walker character was the fun slapstick one that tried to ease the pain of hardship.

It wasn't very good they took in Janet Jackson tried to make it more serious and had that Footballer with the Million Dollar Contract that was unrealistic. The episodes with Gary Coleman were good as they discovered a real talented star that stole the show. Jimmie Walker still had his timing but it wasn't as good without the Mother and Father.

Possibly, they could have milked a couple of more seasons if they changed a bit of the focus.

As for adding a drug dealer, don't forget that they did have "Sweet Daddy" Williams, a pimp/numbers runner. For all we know he was a drug dealer too. Florida should have married him after James died.:)

James could have been a professional Pool hustler.

Yes it did. It seemed like the show ran out of ideas. They were re-doing plots from earlier seasons like 'The Physical' episode. Michael get's arrested and it turns out he's innocent and somebody who looks nothing like him, is the one who does the crime. Similar to 'J.J. Becomes A Man'.

It could of end in the early 80's . It was a good show.:(

I don't think Good Tim es ran its course in terms of storylines. I just think they had lazy, paid-by-the-hour writers in the 5th and 6th season. They had much better scripts and writers the first 3 seasons. Ok scripts the 4th season. They had all kinds of places they could have gone, if they had good writers onboard to balance the comedy with the gritty premise of the show.

Of All the Norman Lear shows, this one had the most struggles behind-the-scenes going back to when it was a pilot script (JJ was originally supposed to be closer to Raj on "What's Happinin'" for instance and based on co-creator Eric Monte)

Let's not forget CBS PULLED the show for months in the final season,and left two shows un-aired till the syndication package.

The simple fact is JAMES Sr. SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECAST WITH ANOTHER ACTOR - that insurance payed for reconstructed surgery on his face. You know how many great black actors in the 1970's would have killed (Figuratively) for the part.

It was the loss of James, not JJ's "Buffoonery" that hurt the show - he was comic relief that became the lead because Amos was fired and Rolle left.

Of All the Norman Lear shows, this one had the most struggles behind-the-scenes going back to when it was a pilot script (JJ was originally supposed to be closer to Raj on "What's Happinin'" for instance and based on co-creator Eric Monte)

Let's not forget CBS PULLED the show for months in the final season,and left two shows un-aired till the syndication package.

The simple fact is JAMES Sr. SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECAST WITH ANOTHER ACTOR - that insurance payed for reconstructed surgery on his face. You know how many great black actors in the 1970's would have killed (Figuratively) for the part.

It was the loss of James, not JJ's "Buffoonery" that hurt the show - he was comic relief that became the lead because Amos was fired and Rolle left.

I actually never thought of it that way. That wouldn't have been such a bad idea recasting James. I would have liked to have seen Good Times go on for two more seasons through 1981 so it could if least go into the 80s.

Of All the Norman Lear shows, this one had the most struggles behind-the-scenes going back to when it was a pilot script (JJ was originally supposed to be closer to Raj on "What's Happinin'" for instance and based on co-creator Eric Monte)

Let's not forget CBS PULLED the show for months in the final season,and left two shows un-aired till the syndication package.

The simple fact is JAMES Sr. SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECAST WITH ANOTHER ACTOR - that insurance payed for reconstructed surgery on his face. You know how many great black actors in the 1970's would have killed (Figuratively) for the part.

It was the loss of James, not JJ's "Buffoonery" that hurt the show - he was comic relief that became the lead because Amos was fired and Rolle left.


John Amos WAS James...plain and simple. Recasting the character with a different actor wouldn't have worked; Amos' performance was simply too strong. Even the arrival of Moses Gunn (playing appliance repair shop owner Carl Dixon) did very little to ease the tension going on behind the scenes.

John Amos WAS James...plain and simple. Recasting the character with a different actor wouldn't have worked; Amos' performance was simply too strong. Even the arrival of Moses Gunn (playing appliance repair shop owner Carl Dixon) did very little to ease the tension going on behind the scenes.

Agreed, recasting would NEVER have worked. Amos was so strong (and strongly identified) in the role, no one would have bought anyone else.

TBH, I can't think of many recastings that really did work, but this one certainly would not have been one.

Agreed, recasting would NEVER have worked. Amos was so strong (and strongly identified) in the role, no one would have bought anyone else.

TBH, I can't think of many recastings that really did work, but this one certainly would not have been one.

This is why I think that most feel that Good Times lost something w/ John Amos being gone.

show should have been cancelled after season 5

show should have been cancelled after season 5
I fully agree!

If they had structured it right, it could have lasted probably three more years.Probably tackled some more serious issues along the way.

John Amos WAS James...plain and simple. Recasting the character with a different actor wouldn't have worked; Amos' performance was simply too strong. Even the arrival of Moses Gunn (playing appliance repair shop owner Carl Dixon) did very little to ease the tension going on behind the scenes.

John Amos was one of those actors who even if you don't like the movie or show that he's in overall, you can respect him because he has a great presence and edge. Check him out in some of his later roles like in Die Hard 2 if you don't believe me. That's a big reason why Good Times more than likely suffered without him because James/John was really the heart and soul of the Evans family if not the show itself. He served as a perfect counter/foil for JJ's foolishness.

John Amos was one of those actors who even if you don't like the movie or show that he's in overall, you can respect him because he has a great presence and edge. Check him out in some of his later roles like in Die Hard 2 if you don't believe me. That's a big reason why Good Times more than likely suffered without him because James/John was really the heart and soul of the Evans family if not the show itself. He served as a perfect counter/foil for JJ's foolishness.

Didn't like him playing Stacy Keach's boyfriend in Two and A Half Men. Ridiculous.

I would have liked to have seen Thelma and Keith have their baby.

I enthusiastically concur, GSU2004! "Good Times" could've added a charismatic but violent drug pusher to the cast (similar to Clifton Powell's character, charismatic but violent drug lord Andre Thompson, on the '90s sitcom "Roc") during its six-season run (1974-79); he would've been a recurring, but not regular, character (but his presence would always be evident). Granted, that would've made "Good Times" a more edgier--and more interesting--program for its time (it would've been more of a dramedy instead of a sitcom), but I doubt that CBS would've allowed Lear to push the envelope THAT far. I also agree that James would've gained a higher-paying, full-time job and Florida would be also be employed, albeit on a part time basis, to help balance the family's monthly budget (now that the kids were on the cusp of adulthood).

Jimmie Walker said that a show like Good Times would never make it on prime time network television today. In other words, you would be hard pressed to find another gritty sitcom about a poor black family in the projects. You can look at something like Black-ish, which often tackles heavy issues like Good Times, but the Johnson family is still at the end of the day, quite affluent and upper middle class unlike the Evans.