So, I've been getting to know Head of the Class again with its current weekday airings on AntennaTV.

In several FOL documentaries, a justification for paring down the season 1 cast of FOL to just 4 girls was because "there were too many girls", "there were just too many people", "there wasn't enough time for all the girls", etc. And some of us here have called bull on that, citing other shows such as Cheers and HotC as very successful shows with rather large casts.

Now Cheers started smaller and gradually added cast members, but HotC was packed from day 1: 10 students and 3 faculty. That's 13 people starring in every episode.

And it worked for all 5 years.

Sure, you may not get personalities as fleshed out, or it may take longer to really round them all out, but as long as you write character dialogue to fit their personality types, you still have a good idea of who's who.

And having been watching HotC for months now in its reruns, it's just more of a head-shake as to why the FOL writers/producers couldn't understand this and make it work.

Well, we can't go back in time and change things, and maybe the series wouldn't have lasted for multiple seasons if they had tried it the HotC way properly (i.e., balancing out the stories and dialogue more so all the girls had time to shine fairly equally), but at least those of us who call bull on the "there were just too many girls" theory have some good evidence by pointing to HotC.

THIS.

But it wasn't just Head of the Class (although that is most relevant, being also set in a school). Degrassi (Junior) High, Eight is Enough, and Just the Ten of Us made large casts work, and aired in a similar era as Facts of Life and Head of the Class. Each of their respective casts were even larger than FOL's first season. Saved By the Bell ran with a cast of six students. Are you really telling me seven students was somehow unacceptable when six worked just fine? When ten on HOTC worked just fine? When, like... 30 worked just fine on Degrassi?

Exactly!

And when I referenced "some" of us here taking this stance, I was definitely thinking of you, lol (we have both been quite vocal about that here).

We have indeed. But many other FOL watchers feel the same way; I see their comments frequently on my YouTube channel, particularly on this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y72fTKZTWk4&t=7s).

Facts of Life has been far more successful than HoTC. And those girls who were fired after the first season were, for the most part, terrible. Sue Ann was the worst, played by one of the worst child actresses of the 70s/80s. Cindy was a non-entity. And it’s amazing that the show didn’t sink Molly Ringwald’s career, so was so awful.

Facts of Life has been far more successful than HoTC.

Successful how? Definitely not in terms of ratings; Head of the Class ranked in the top 30 for each of its five seasons, and even reached the top 20. The Facts of Life, unfortunately, never climbed above #24 in the annual ratings, and only managed to make the top 30 for four of its nine seasons. Head of the Class was clearly a bigger ratings hit (Source: Brooks and Marsh, Complete Directory).

Head of the Class ratings:
Season 1: #30
Season 2: #23
Season 3: #20
Season 4: #26
Season 5: #26

The Facts of Life ratings:
Season 1: not in top 30
Season 2: #26
Season 3: #24
Season 4: not in top 30
Season 5: #24
Season 6: not in top 30
Season 7: #27
Season 8: not in top 30
Season 9: not in top 30

Head of the Class was a bigger ratings hit.

In terms of awards, neither series won any Emmys. Although The Facts of Life received slightly more TV Land award nominations, it is ironically because the Lost Girls, the very girls whose acting skills you are scoffing at, were nominated for a TV Land award in 2008, the category Favorite Characters Who Went Missing. Clearly, even to this day, many people did like their characters, and hated to see them go.



And those girls who were fired after the first season were, for the most part, terrible. Sue Ann was the worst, played by one of the worst child actresses of the 70s/80s.

'80sSitcoms won't disagree with you, but I will. I liked the character of Sue Ann, and she reminds me of a girl I know, and how she acted. I definitely prefer her acting to Nancy McKeon's over-the-top in-your-face female Fonzie act. We didn't need another Fonzie.


Cindy was a non-entity.

Cindy was awesome, and with some stronger Season Two scripts, Julie Anne (who had done both TV and film prior to her Facts run) could have run rings around Nancy McKeon's crying Hallmark commercial act. Julie Anne's important work in changing attitudes towards gays and lesbians in the media is cited (https://books.google.com/books?id=rLhJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219&dq=%22julie+anne+haddock%22%2B%22lesbian%22&source=bl&ots=ipBMpw8aVN&sig=mfBGniFcCWMCC4M8H2bxjiDG8WE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwimwLSzx5PbAhULCXwKHZRcAas4ChDoAQg5MAM#v=onepage&q=%22julie%20anne%20haddock%22%2B%22lesbian%22&f=false) in television critic Stephen Tropiano's 2002 book, The Prime Time Closet: A History of Gays and Lesbians on TV. As far as I know, Tropiano only mentions Charlotte Rae, Lisa Whelchel, and Julie Anne Haddock.


And it’s amazing that the show didn’t sink Molly Ringwald’s career, so was so awful.

I felt her musical skills at that point in her life were sub-par, but I thought she was otherwise a good actress. She didn't have much time to shine, and I later discovered that some of the lines they gave her on FOL ended up on the cutting room floor (the same happened to Felice Schachter).

Her role on FOL was never large, but clearly she had serious acting chops considering her film career launched just after FOL.

The individual season rankings don’t tell the whole story. NBC was eventually able to use FOL to lead off an hour, while HOTC was always in a protected period (mostly airing after the top-10 rated “Growing Pains”, and losing a good chunk of its lead-in). FOL ran almost twice as long, spawned three TV movies, and has had a longer and I suspect more profitable run in syndication. FOL has reached a greater number of viewers given its longer run on both the network and in syndication vs HoTC.

But the rankings do bear out that FOL was far more successful with the reduced cast. The first season was ranked #74 out of 76 shows. The season when the reduced the cast was ranked #26. Even its last season ranked #37 - never reaching the lows of that first season.

As far as the first season cast goes, Julie Piekarski was one of the worst actresses I’ve ever seen in primetime. Julie Anne Haddock wasn’t terrible, but she was a nonentity to me. I thought Nancy McKeon had much more screen presence and talent. Nancy has also had a more successful acting career.

What in the world does Julie Anne Haddock’s “work in changing the attitudes toward gays and lesbians in the media” have to do with this conversation?

The individual season rankings don’t tell the whole story. NBC was eventually able to use FOL to lead off an hour, while HOTC was always in a protected period (mostly airing after the top-10 rated “Growing Pains”, and losing a good chunk of its lead-in). FOL ran almost twice as long, spawned three TV movies, and has had a longer and I suspect more profitable run in syndication. FOL has reached a greater number of viewers given its longer run on both the network and in syndication vs HoTC.

You have a point about FOL having a longer run, but FOL actually had a shorter run in the top 30: only four seasons as a top 30 hit, while HOTC was in the top 30 for all five of its seasons. HOTC likely could have had a much longer run, if Howard Hesseman hadn't left the show. Even with him sabotaging his own show, bad-mouthing it to the press, the series remained in the top 30 every season it was on the air.

Head of the Class even spawned a spin-off, Billy. None of FOL's many spin-off attempts even got of the ground.

I'd like to see some numbers for rerun syndication ratings. The only numbers I've seen are for FOL vs HOTC in first-run airing, where HOTC, with its larger cast, beat the pants off FOL's smaller cast, by millions of viewers. No, it's clear the smaller cast was a huge mistake, and the writers started getting desperate, adding new cast members no one cared about (Pimpa, Andy, Beverly, George, Rick, Kevin, the Princess), or who people actually wanted killed off. You said it yourself! The drastically reduced cast was a huge error, and the writers ran out of ideas, and started bringing in random characters no one liked.


But the rankings do bear out that FOL was far more successful with the reduced cast. The first season was ranked #74 out of 76 shows. The season when the reduced the cast was ranked #26. Even its last season ranked #37 - never reaching the lows of that first season.

I believe the reason the FOL didn't do as well in its first season was because it was scheduled against two hit shows: Fantasy Island and The Incredible Hulk. NBC execs should have scheduled FOL immediately after DS, its parent series. The executives realized their mistake, and moved the show at Season Two. The fact that ratings immediately were higher shows that it had nothing to do with the smaller cast: more people were tuning in immediately, which wouldn't have happened if the larger cast had been an actual turn-off.

Further, news reports indicated that FOL was getting big ratings during the summer of 1980, when its competition was in re-runs. The show was building momentum, and that wouldn't have been possible if the large cast had been the problem.


As far as the first season cast goes, Julie Piekarski was one of the worst actresses I’ve ever seen in primetime.

'80sSitcoms won't disagree, but I definitely do. For me, the worst actresses in prime time were Lindsay and Sidney Greenbush, who up until their final season couldn't say their lines without sounding wooden and/or mentally challenged. I really wonder why they couldn't get them acting lessons.

And that first season, Jo to me sounded like she was trying to do a bad Fonzie impression. I was much happier when they had her phase that out.


Julie Anne Haddock wasn’t terrible, but she was a nonentity to me. I thought Nancy McKeon had much more screen presence and talent. Nancy has also had a more successful acting career.

Julie Anne, Molly, and Felice did film. Nancy made a nice career from those TV movies of the week for, like, Lifetime. Which is nice. But it can't be said that Nancy McKeon has had a more successful career than the Lost Girls: Molly Ringwald's a household name, even to this day.


What in the world does Julie Anne Haddock’s “work in changing the attitudes toward gays and lesbians in the media” have to do with this conversation?

She's been noted by television critics for her work, and is therefore not a "non-entity". A "non-entity's" work on a show would not be noted by critics. She wouldn't exist to them. But her work helped shift attitudes, at a time when Nancy McKeon was still doing 30-second spots for Hallmark, Fruity Pebbles cereal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOBvtv_GFSE), and Hellman's mayonnaise (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90PHDhUXd_k). Shifting attitudes... or mayo.

https://prods3.imgix.net/images/articles/2017_06/Non-Feature-Mayo-Taste-Test2.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompress&ixjsv=2.2.3&w=670

The only numbers I've seen are for FOL vs HOTC in first-run airing, where HOTC, with its larger cast, beat the pants off FOL's smaller cast, by millions of viewers.
That’s not accurate. Rankings don’t measure viewership. What you should be looking at is ratings, which actually measures number of eyeballs watching the show. By the time “Head of the Class” aired, overall primetime network ratings had declined, so it took fewer eyeballs to get into the top 10 or 20 or 30. By ratings points and number of viewers, “Facts of Life” was the higher rated show. FOL ratings:

Season 1: 4.5 rating
Season 2: 19.3 rating
Season 3: 19.1 rating
Season 4: 17.1 rating
Season 5: 17.3 rating
Season 6: 16.3 rating
Season 7: 17.7 rating
Season 8: 16.3 rating
Season 9: 14.6 rating

By comparison, HoTC ratings:

Season 1: 16.4 rating
Season 2: 16.7 rating
Season 3: 17.1 rating
Season 4: 14.8 rating
Season 5: 14.5 rating

To better show the decline in overall network viewership: back in the 1950s, the top-rated show, “I Love Lucy” used to get 30-40 million viewers regularly. By comparison, “The Big Bang Theory”, the top rated sitcom (prior to the Roseanne revival) gets about 18-20 million viewers.

Julie Anne, Molly, and Felice did film. Nancy made a nice career from those TV movies of the week for, like, Lifetime. Which is nice. But it can't be said that Nancy McKeon has had a more successful career than the Lost Girls: Molly Ringwald's a household name, even to this day.
You are misrepresenting what I posted. I never said that Nancy was more successful in her acting career than Molly. I said she was more successful than Julie Anne Haddock in her acting career. And she was.

She's been noted by television critics for her work, and is therefore not a "non-entity". A "non-entity's" work on a show would not be noted by critics. She wouldn't exist to them.Again, a misinterpretation of my post. I was referring to her work within the context of the show. She was a non-entity on the show, to me. That has nothing to do with what she did outside of the show. And that’s subjective - there’s no “right” answer. But she was let go, and the show was higher rated without her.

And again, FOL was more successful from a ratings standpoint with a smaller cast.

As far as the first season cast goes, Julie Piekarski was one of the worst actresses I’ve ever seen in primetime. I totally disagree. Sue Ann was easily my favorite of the season 1 girls that did not come back. Molly Ringwald might have gone on to popular movies, but she was the worst actress on season 1. As for Head of the Class, it might have lasted longer if Howard Hesseman didn't leave at the end of season 4. His replacement Billy Connolly was terrible.

^I didn't like Molly, either.

That’s not accurate. Rankings don’t measure viewership. What you should be looking at is ratings, which actually measures number of eyeballs watching the show. By the time “Head of the Class” aired, overall primetime network ratings had declined, so it took fewer eyeballs to get into the top 10 or 20 or 30. By ratings points and number of viewers, “Facts of Life” was the higher rated show. FOL ratings:

Season 1: 4.5 rating
Season 2: 19.3 rating
Season 3: 19.1 rating
Season 4: 17.1 rating
Season 5: 17.3 rating
Season 6: 16.3 rating
Season 7: 17.7 rating
Season 8: 16.3 rating
Season 9: 14.6 rating

By comparison, HoTC ratings:

Season 1: 16.4 rating
Season 2: 16.7 rating
Season 3: 17.1 rating
Season 4: 14.8 rating
Season 5: 14.5 rating

To better show the decline in overall network viewership: back in the 1950s, the top-rated show, “I Love Lucy” used to get 30-40 million viewers regularly. By comparison, “The Big Bang Theory”, the top rated sitcom (prior to the Roseanne revival) gets about 18-20 million viewers.

I'm aware of the decline in viewership over the years, and it doesn't matter. Both The Facts of Life and Head of the Class aired during the 1986-1987 television season, a direct apples-to-apples comparison. Head of the Class, which its gigantic cast, beat The Facts of Life, with its smaller cast, by millions of viewers: 16.4 rating vs 14.8 rating. The following season, 1987-1988, Head of the Class again beat The Facts of Life by millions of viewers: 16.7 rating vs 14.6 rating.


You are misrepresenting what I posted. I never said that Nancy was more successful in her acting career than Molly. I said she was more successful than Julie Anne Haddock in her acting career.

No, I understood that you were comparing Nancy's success with Julie Anne's success. And Molly was most successful of all the Facts girls, arguably. Molly's career picked up soon after she left FOL, and she never looked back. The idea that she was a poor actress just isn't supported. With the right scripts and the right direction, she was amazing.


Again, a misinterpretation of my post. I was referring to her work within the context of the show. She was a non-entity on the show, to me. That has nothing to do with what she did outside of the show. And that’s subjective - there’s no “right” answer. But she was let go, and the show was higher rated without her.

The critic I mentioned was talking about Julie Anne's work within the context of the show: he notes the plot of the pilot episode, and highlights Julie Anne's work. As far as I know, Nancy doesn't merit a mention. Julie Anne's work on the Facts of Life merits discussion, so she is not a "non-entity". It's a shame she didn't get more screen time, because she was amazing as it was, and her work on TFOL is noteworthy... or at least critics thought so.


And again, FOL was more successful from a ratings standpoint with a smaller cast.

Nope, in a head-to-head contest, HOTC, with its huge cast, beat FOL's smaller cast in both 1986-1987 and again in 1987-1988. The idea that "the cast was too large" just isn't supported: big casts worked just fine... better, even.

Then, once the producers realized they had cut too many characters out, they started adding random characters nobody cared about. Let's see, there was:
Howard the Cook
Roy the Delivery Boy
Kelly the Street Thug
Boots the snob
Miko
Terry
Alexandra the Princess
Mr. Parker
Andy
George
Kevin
Snake
Jo's husband, whose name I can never recall
Beverly Ann
Pimpa
Richard Moll
???

Most of these characters were completely unlikable.

I totally disagree. Sue Ann was easily my favorite of the season 1 girls that did not come back. Molly Ringwald might have gone on to popular movies, but she was the worst actress on season 1. As for Head of the Class, it might have lasted longer if Howard Hesseman didn't leave at the end of season 4. His replacement Billy Connolly was terrible.

I liked Sue Ann, too, and felt like there was a lot more they could explore with that character ('80sSitcoms made a most excellent guide (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=324047) to how all the girls could have been given decent roles, and it has Sue Ann, not Jo (who would never have worn a dress that early in the show) being invited to the ritzy wing-ding cotillion, Sue Ann rather than tough street punk Jo who decides to become a nun, etc.)

I agree that HOTC could have continued if Howard Hesseman had stayed on, but he hated his own show, weirdly enough. And Billy was so over-the-top I couldn't watch that final season.

HOTC was a new program in 1986. I like both shows, but FOL definitely had mote overall impact and left a longer-lasting impression- and not just because it ran longer.

I don't mind FOl's first season, but it definitely found its footing starting with season 2. In this particular case, cutting the cast did do the trick.

Wow some of you posters are really dishing the actors. I would hate to be an actress and have to people come down on me so so hard. I can't imagine a outsider coming into my work place and jumping all over me for my work. These actors are people too. I understand it is part of the business, but does it have to be?? I understand how they may not get work again. Would you feel comfortable having some chew you up.??

Wow some of you posters are really dishing the actors. I would hate to be an actress and have to people come down on me so so hard. I can't imagine a outsider coming into my work place and jumping all over me for my work. These actors are people too. I understand it is part of the business, but does it have to be?? I understand how they may not get work again. Would you feel comfortable having some chew you up.??

Some of the actresses involved were very young at the time, and some, like Mindy, started off with no acting experience whatsoever. Over the years, they all improved (some were never given the chance because Warren Littlefield can't count).

We saw Felice and Molly's lines end up on the cutting room floor. We saw Geri's part dry up when the producers offered her only one episode. All the actors involved had talent, and I just wish the network executives and the producers hadn't been so focused on just five characters during the middle years of the show.

Some of the actresses involved were very young at the time, and some, like Mindy, started off with no acting experience whatsoever. Over the years, they all improved (some were never given the chance because Warren Littlefield can't count).


That last line - :lol:



Yeah, from what I recall, that's something that hasn't really been discussed on boards or on documentaries that I've seen---for Mindy having had absolutely no prior experience*, she was great right from the start!


*(granted she had no television experience, but we don't know if she had any acting experience such as school plays, etc.)

That last line - :lol:

:lol:


Yeah, from what I recall, that's something that hasn't really been discussed on boards or on documentaries that I've seen---for Mindy having had absolutely no prior experience*, she was great right from the start!


*(granted she had no television experience, but we don't know if she had any acting experience such as school plays, etc.)

Well, Mindy says she didn't know terms "stage left", "stage right", etc. Even a school play would have terms like "upstage", "downstage". She says she'd never acted, literally.

In Season One, Mindy was portraying a version of herself, for the most part: Natalie playing checkers, Natalie smearing face cream on herself, Natalie jogging with a stitch in her side. She did well with the small role she had. To me, what is more extraordinary is how well she did with a larger role in Season Two. Then again, I think the direction was better, then, too: NBC had committed to sixteen episodes, instead of a trial run of four episodes plus a back nine in spring. They also clearly spent money on promotion, so there was more riding on solid acting.

In Season One, Mindy was portraying a version of herself, for the most part: Natalie playing checkers, Natalie smearing face cream on herself, Natalie jogging with a stitch in her side.

Hey, we don't know; maybe Mindy hated checkers, never used face cream, and was an excellent jogger. :lol: But I meant acting as far as reciting lines on camera, while moving with given direction, etc., Some people can't even "be themselves" convincingly on camera, lol (some athletes are terrible at "acting" in a cameo appearance). She wasn't "forcing" anything, she was just a natural---from day 1 on up until the very end.

Hey, we don't know; maybe Mindy hated checkers, never used face cream, and was an excellent jogger. :lol: But I meant acting as far as reciting lines on camera, while moving with given direction, etc., Some people can't even "be themselves" convincingly on camera, lol (some athletes are terrible at "acting" in a cameo appearance). She wasn't "forcing" anything, she was just a natural---from day 1 on up until the very end.

Great point about some athletes/celebs being unable to act even as themselves.

Looking back at Mindy, she had so much charisma and confidence. It's clear that not knowing stage direction or methods of acting couldn't stop her. But I think it also helped that the writers gave her some genuinely funny lines. And they never stripped lines from her part, unlike Felice or Molly. That could not have been a confidence builder.

Great point about some athletes/celebs being unable to act even as themselves.

Looking back at Mindy, she had so much charisma and confidence. It's clear that not knowing stage direction or methods of acting couldn't stop her. But I think it also helped that the writers gave her some genuinely funny lines. And they never stripped lines from her part, unlike Felice or Molly. That could not have been a confidence builder.

Well, except for NG2, where she asks Molly what kind of dessert she wants, and waxes that she would like a statue of herself in honor of her martyrdom, lol.

You know, thinking of that, now that makes me wonder what other cute lines are "out there" from seasons 2 - 4. Not as skimping on parts, but just the natural script writing/polishing process. Sometimes there are gems on the cutting room floor!

Well, except for NG2, where she asks Molly what kind of dessert she wants, and waxes that she would like a statue of herself in honor of her martyrdom, lol.

True, but in a part that big, an actor wouldn't miss a single line.

In a part where you have fewer than ten lines, and two are cut, that would be nerve-wracking.


You know, thinking of that, now that makes me wonder what other cute lines are "out there" from seasons 2 - 4. Not as skimping on parts, but just the natural script writing/polishing process. Sometimes there are gems on the cutting room floor!

I don't know; I purchased a script for "Breaking Point", but it turned out to not be a genuine script, but rather a transcript made from the episode, likely many years later.

I did find a mention of someone who has a copy of the shooting script for "Gossip" (https://fol-fiction.livejournal.com/45912.html). There was a scene that was cut:

I have a script for Gossip, so I'll mention some minor dialog that didn't end up in the on-air version:

When Jo brings in the Times and Blair says, "The world's only civilized newspaper," in the script she adds, "Now we'll know what's going on in 'The Big Apple.'" She then turns to Jo and says, "That's New York."

In the script, Blair comes to Mrs. G's room to say that she is not going on the trip. Mrs. Garrett asks if she caught a cold from Nancy pouring the ice on her. Blair says, "Nancy thinks I'm trying to steal her boyfriend, Roger, because that's what Jo told her." Mrs. Garrett says, "You mean Jo lied?" Blair replies, "No, she told the truth, the crumb! Anyway, I'm not speaking to Jo and I don't know how I'm going to make up with Nancy. It just wouldn't be any fun, so I'm not going." Mrs. G tells Blair that they should come up with a better solution, and then Mr. Harris arrives to discuss Edna's drinking problem.

Rather than "The envelope please," Blair's last line originally was, "What the heck. I'll help. After all, sending out invitations is one of the things I do best."

True, but in a part that big, an actor wouldn't miss a single line.

Right, that was probably "the norm" from show-to-show in those seasons with our "fab five".

That sucks about the fake script.


In the script, Blair comes to Mrs. G's room to say that she is not going on the trip. Mrs. Garrett asks if she caught a cold from Nancy pouring the ice on her. Blair says, "Nancy thinks I'm trying to steal her boyfriend, Roger, because that's what Jo told her." Mrs. Garrett says, "You mean Jo lied?" Blair replies, "No, she told the truth, the crumb!

But Blair wasn't trying to steal Roger. She even told Jo outright, "I'm not after Roger!"

If that "cut line" is a true line, maybe Blair meant it in a roundabout way, but still, that's a bad line.

But Blair wasn't trying to steal Roger. She even told Jo outright, "I'm not after Roger!"

If that "cut line" is a true line, maybe Blair meant it in a roundabout way, but still, that's a bad line.

I agree. I can see why the line was cut. It doesn't make sense, given what we know from the rest of the episode.