Something which would have made a fantastic tangible "extra" for the FOL season 1 & 2 DVD set would be physical copies of all of the photos taken with Molly's camera in season 1's "Running"!

Or even a gallery of them on the DVD set as an "extra", even if not physically reproduced.

But the question is, do they exist? Was there even film in the camera? Since Mrs. Garrett took the photo "Buddies Forever" as a real photo, one could assume there was indeed film in Molly's camera; unless, a crew member took that photo "off camera" and that was used instead of any photo Charlotte would have taken (but I like to think it's the photo Mrs. Garrett actually took).

If there was indeed film in the camera for the whole episode, here are the photos taken during that show:



1 of Mr. Bradley with the trophy
9 of Blair modeling
1 "Buddies Forever"
6 of the Cindy vs Sue Ann fight



Sadly, the camera was never clicked in time for "Two Champs", and we don't know if it was actually clicked for "Three Champs" (the video freeze frames for the first end credits before we can see any camera flash).

But from the above inventory, we can assume that, if film was indeed in the camera the whole time, there were at least 16 photos taken during the taping of "Running".

What wonderful "extras" those would make!!

I think the photos they showed were taken ahead of time. Those photos in Mrs. G's camera would have had to have been developed, and there's no way they would have halted a production in order to develop some pictures.

All props are gathered ahead of the television production.

Still, some of the photos made should be out there somewhere. They'd make a cool souvenir!

I think the photos they showed were taken ahead of time. Those photos in Mrs. G's camera would have had to have been developed, and there's no way they would have halted a production in order to develop some pictures.

All props are gathered ahead of the television production.

OMG where was my mind?? Of course props are all gathered before the taping of a TV show, and of course "Buddies Forever" would had to have been taken ahead of time; because back in the archaic 1980s film had to be developed, hahaha. I was multi-tasking when coming up with this thread so I didn't even think of that. :lol:

But yeah, my point question still stands in asking though, if the pics "taken" during the show existed at all---did they even ever get developed?? lol

OMG where was my mind?? Of course props are all gathered before the taping of a TV show, and of course "Buddies Forever" would had to have been taken ahead of time; because back in the archaic 1980s film had to be developed, hahaha. I was multi-tasking when coming up with this thread so I didn't even think of that. :lol:

It's easy to forget how old-fashioned everything was back then.


But yeah, my point question still stands in asking though, if the pics "taken" during the show existed at all---did they even ever get developed?? lol

Why would they load film in the camera? It's not like they needed the photos for anything. But because episodes are taped twice (and one episode of the first season was taped four times), I doubt they would have even put film in the camera.

There definitely was a photographer on set taking photos: many of the Getty images seem to come from this photographer, who presumably was hired for the Spring 1980 episodes, since there appear to have been very few photos taken during the first four episodes.

Why would they load film in the camera?

Just for authenticity; like, was that camera one that could even make the flash go off without film in it? I don't know! It's so old-fashioned! :lol: And they did keep manually doing the "winding" of the film. I want there to have been film in the camera, please do not take away my "Facts" fantasy. :lol:

Just for authenticity; like, was that camera one that could even make the flash go off without film in it? I don't know! It's so old-fashioned! :lol: And they did keep manually doing the "winding" of the film. I want there to have been film in the camera, please do not take away my "Facts" fantasy. :lol:

Oh, heh heh, sorry.

I'm sure there was film in the camera, then. Those photos will one day surface on Ebay.

This make me want to ask a camera expert: 1) Can you "flash" a camera without film, and 2) can you "wind" a camera's "wind" button without film? lol

This make me want to ask a camera expert: 1) Can you "flash" a camera without film, and 2) can you "wind" a camera's "wind" button without film? lol

Definitely depends on the camera. In some cameras, the "winding" sound wouldn't sound very authentic without actual film in the camera.

Oo, I forgot one! Molly also takes a photo of Mr. Bradley proudly beaming with "his" trophy :lol:

I've amended my original post to include that.

:2bump

Here's the old discussion on this since this subject has come up again.

Im sure Julie Pie has them in a scrapbook somewhere ;)

Im sure Julie Pie has them in a scrapbook somewhere ;)

I don't doubt if they exist, they are indeed in Julie Pie's scrapbook! :lol:

...which means they don't exist, because we just saw the photos from Julie Pie's scrapbook, in the Reelz documentary.

When Molly was taking pictures of Blair, she positioned herself as classes in photography teach. She took both landscape and portrait shots. She must have had some training somewhere. We seen her years later holding a large lens and camera for a safari. When Tootie became the Eastland photographer after Molly disappeared, she looked like some random person taking a picture.

I don't doubt if they exist, they are indeed in Julie Pie's scrapbook! :lol:

...which means they don't exist, because we just saw the photos from Julie Pie's scrapbook, in the Reelz documentary.

But I don't think we saw every picture that Julie Pie had from the show. I imagine she had a lot more than what she showed in the documentary.

This make me want to ask a camera expert: 1) Can you "flash" a camera without film, and 2) can you "wind" a camera's "wind" button without film? lol

Yes, you can. I still have my Pentax K-1000 that I had from that era and you can wind the film without film as long as you have the shutter. Cameras back then didn't have the technology to know whether film was in them or not.

When Molly was taking pictures of Blair, she positioned herself as classes in photography teach. She took both landscape and portrait shots. She must have had some training somewhere. We seen her years later holding a large lens and camera for a safari. When Tootie became the Eastland photographer after Molly disappeared, she looked like some random person taking a picture.

I don't doubt that Molly Ringwald might have had a real photography interest, considering the character she played, who had a photography interest, was based on her.

I've often wondered if Tootie's photography scene in "Pretty Babies" wasn't originally meant for Molly; Tootie had never been seen with a camera, while Molly was the established camera expert. We know the producers still wanted some continuity between seasons, at that point, and Nancy even appeared in that episode, so it was already an established "Lost Girls" episode in Season Two.

It's possible that in the original script, Molly wondered aloud about something photography-related, and Tootie dragged her in to meet Jonathan Dutton, and that's how he discovered Tootie, his next "star". But if Molly was ever invited to appear in "Pretty Babies", she must have declined. We know she felt the appearances were degrading, and she refused to do them anymore.

But I don't think we saw every picture that Julie Pie had from the show. I imagine she had a lot more than what she showed in the documentary.

I agree, I'm sure they couldn't use all of them

But I don't think we saw every picture that Julie Pie had from the show. I imagine she had a lot more than what she showed in the documentary.

:yeahthat

As bubbly and energetic as Julie Pie is? You know she has PAGES of photos! :nod:

I've often wondered if Tootie's photography scene in "Pretty Babies" wasn't originally meant for Molly; Tootie had never been seen with a camera, while Molly was the established camera expert. We know the producers still wanted some continuity between seasons, at that point, and Nancy even appeared in that episode, so it was already an established "Lost Girls" episode in Season Two.

It's possible that in the original script, Molly wondered aloud about something photography-related, and Tootie dragged her in to meet Jonathan Dutton, and that's how he discovered Tootie, his next "star". But if Molly was ever invited to appear in "Pretty Babies", she must have declined. We know she felt the appearances were degrading, and she refused to do them anymore.

That's an entertaining theory, and I hate to rain on your creative parade, but circumstantial evidence makes it seem like Molly closed the "Facts of Life" book right after filming TNGP2, just the 2nd episode of the season. So it's a possibility the writers knew "Don't write Molly in, she won't be coming back."

That's an entertaining theory, and I hate to rain on your creative parade, but circumstantial evidence makes it seem like Molly closed the "Facts of Life" book right after filming TNGP2, just the 2nd episode of the season. So it's a possibility the writers knew "Don't write Molly in, she won't be coming back."

But maybe they wrote outlines for the season during the writers strike

That's an entertaining theory, and I hate to rain on your creative parade, but circumstantial evidence makes it seem like Molly closed the "Facts of Life" book right after filming TNGP2, just the 2nd episode of the season. So it's a possibility the writers knew "Don't write Molly in, she won't be coming back."

I doubt that the scripts weren't written until after the season had already begun. I believe they would have been revised later on, but as Margie Peters says, the strike gave the writers time to develop the stories. There's no way they would have waited until November to begin writing scripts when they had all summer to work on them, waiting for the SAG strike to end.

but as Margie Peters says

You're citing Margie Peters?? For your viewpoint??

:eek:

:lol:

;)

(I have this feeling that I could very easily go either way with liking Margie in person, depending on the conversation. Sometimes I'm in sync with her, other times she rubs me the wrong way.)

You're citing Margie Peters?? For your viewpoint??

:eek:

:lol:

;)

:lol::lol::lol::lol:


(I have this feeling that I could very easily go either way with liking Margie in person, depending on the conversation. Sometimes I'm in sync with her, other times she rubs me the wrong way.)

I think I'm kinda the same way. I do like some of the things Margie says. But I feel like she goes too far when she talks about perfectly acceptable shorts girls wore every day in the 1970s as "kiddie porn", or calls roller skates "stereotypical" of black culture. As you correctly pointed out, the girls weren't wearing those shorts in the winter, so Margie's wrong about that.

And I heartily disagree with Margie's premise that the show "had to go deeper" by expelling more than half of its cast. "Head of the Class" started off with 12 characters (nine students) and then added more. Now, the shows didn't have to be clones of one another, but the idea that you couldn't possibly manage a cast "that large" is just silly. It's pig: wash.

I think I'm kinda the same way.

You are, because I knew you would be too! :lol:

And by the way, where is Linda Marsh in all of this??? Is she just adamant about being OFF CAMERA?... Has she left us already?...


And I heartily disagree with Margie's premise that the show "had to go deeper" by expelling more than half of its cast. "Head of the Class" started off with 12 characters (nine students) and then added more. Now, the shows didn't have to be clones of one another, but the idea that you couldn't possibly manage a cast "that large" is just silly. It's pig: wash.

"pig: wash" :lol:

And what about "The Brady Bunch"? There were 9 folks in that show and they never had to purge any of the kids.

You are, because I knew you would be too! :lol:

And by the way, where is Linda Marsh in all of this??? Is she just adamant about being OFF CAMERA?... Has she left us already?...


That's a good question. IMDB says Linda was born in 1939 (https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0550604/), so she would be about 81, now. Her first screen credits were in 1962 (then as an actress); she seems to have retired from showbusiness since 1987, whereas Margie was still involved in television as late as 1994. Margie is clearly considerably younger.



And what about "The Brady Bunch"? There were 9 folks in that show and they never had to purge any of the kids.

EXACTLY!

When Molly was taking pictures of Blair, she positioned herself as classes in photography teach. She took both landscape and portrait shots. She must have had some training somewhere. We seen her years later holding a large lens and camera for a safari. When Tootie became the Eastland photographer after Molly disappeared, she looked like some random person taking a picture.


You're absolutely right 80s Dude: TOOTIE looked more like a tourist to me taking photos on a sightseeing trip, whereas MOLLY was more like an artist (or someone wanting to become one later on in life).:wave::wave::wave:

Something which would have made a fantastic tangible "extra" for the FOL season 1 & 2 DVD set would be physical copies of all of the photos taken with Molly's camera in season 1's "Running"!

Or even a gallery of them on the DVD set as an "extra", even if not physically reproduced.

But the question is, do they exist? Was there even film in the camera? Since Mrs. Garrett took the photo "Buddies Forever" as a real photo, one could assume there was indeed film in Molly's camera; unless, a crew member took that photo "off camera" and that was used instead of any photo Charlotte would have taken (but I like to think it's the photo Mrs. Garrett actually took).

If there was indeed film in the camera for the whole episode, here are the photos taken during that show:



1 of Mr. Bradley with the trophy
9 of Blair modeling
1 "Buddies Forever"
6 of the Cindy vs Sue Ann fight



Sadly, the camera was never clicked in time for "Two Champs", and we don't know if it was actually clicked for "Three Champs" (the video freeze frames for the first end credits before we can see any camera flash).

But from the above inventory, we can assume that, if film was indeed in the camera the whole time, there were at least 16 photos taken during the taping of "Running".

What wonderful "extras" those would make!!

I would say the pictures of Blair were real. In the background after Mr. Bradley brings in the trophy, you can see Molly rewinding the film as if the camera has no more frames in. In the scene where Molly took pictures of Cindy doing the backflip, the flash didn't go off.

Molly also mentioned in an interview that she would take pictures of her older sister flipping her hair with a toy camera when she was young. This was when Molly's mother kept her hair short for some reason while allowing her older sister to grow longer hair.

I would say the pictures of Blair were real. In the background after Mr. Bradley brings in the trophy, you can see Molly rewinding the film as if the camera has no more frames in. In the scene where Molly took pictures of Cindy doing the backflip, the flash didn't go off.

Molly also mentioned in an interview that she would take pictures of her older sister flipping her hair with a toy camera when she was young. This was when Molly's mother kept her hair short for some reason while allowing her older sister to grow longer hair.

It's so weird that Molly's mom wouldn't let her grow her hair out. Why would you do that to a kid who wanted to grow out her hair?

The flash might not have been on in Cindy's backflip photo.

It's so weird that Molly's mom wouldn't let her grow her hair out. Why would you do that to a kid who wanted to grow out her hair?

The flash might not have been on in Cindy's backflip photo.

I guess Mrs. Ringwald thought it would be easier for them to manage Molly's hair if it was short. Interestingly, she's worn it medium or long from adulthood onwards so she seems to have rebelled.

It's so weird that Molly's mom wouldn't let her grow her hair out. Why would you do that to a kid who wanted to grow out her hair?

Because moms can be moms, lol. They have the say-so.

And it worked--Hollywood loved short-haired little Molly!

And she really does look better with shorter hair anyway.

I guess Mrs. Ringwald thought it would be easier for them to manage Molly's hair if it was short. Interestingly, she's worn it medium or long from adulthood onwards so she seems to have rebelled.

Molly definitely has a rebellious streak, for sure. But I'm glad she's making her own hair decisions, now, and Adele isn't still calling the shots on Molly's hair length. :lol:

Because moms can be moms, lol. They have the say-so.

And it worked--Hollywood loved short-haired little Molly!

And she really does look better with shorter hair anyway.

Anything is better than The Bowl. :lol:

Anything is better than The Bowl. :lol:

I disagree (see her long hair in "For Keeps"). She looks so cute with that short cut, unlike Kim, who, I'm sorry, did not look good with that. (why on earth Jo-Ann Stafford-Chaney went from the very cute top knot look to "the bowl", I'll never know!)

I disagree (see her long hair in "For Keeps"). She looks so cute with that short cut, unlike Kim, who, I'm sorry, did not look good with that. (why on earth Jo-Ann Stafford-Chaney went from the very cute top knot look to "the bowl", I'll never know!)


I agree: KIM FIELD looked awful with the bob/short hair at the front!
(i'm really glad they god rid of that look by season 5 lol)

By season 8: KIM was the prettiest girl out of the 'Core of 4' though!(in my opinion)

present:present:present:present:present:present:present:present:present:

But because episodes are taped twice (and one episode of the first season was taped four times), I doubt they would have even put film in the camera.

The episodes are taped twice?

The episodes are taped twice?



I guess they wanted the episodes to be perfect and weren't satisfied by the first try?

:football::football::football::football::football::football::football::football:

The episodes are taped twice?

Yep. This was standard practice in the 1980s-1990s. there's a rehearsal taping and then another taping.

Yep. This was standard practice in the 1980s-1990s. there's a rehearsal taping and then another taping.

Even going back to the 1960s with The Carol Burnett Show. They taped twice on Fridays.

Bachu, they did that so that in case something didn't go well in one of the tapings, they would have the second one as a back-up. This way they could edit parts from one taping and splice them into the other taping for the best of both shows forming one episode.

This is especially noticeable if you're watching an episode and notice characters being in different positions when it cuts to a new camera angle (such as Mr. Bradley's infamous room position change in "The Return of Mr. Garrett", or Cindy and Sue Ann suddenly vanishing from their cafeteria chairs in "Front Page").

Even going back to the 1960s with The Carol Burnett Show. They taped twice on Fridays.

Makes sense. I wonder when the two-taping rule started. This indicates (http://eyesofageneration.com/how-i-love-lucy-was-produced-the-detailsbelow-is-a-view-of-tri-set-layou/) that I Love Lucy, which was filmed, did not record the rehearsal, as there was no studio audience until 8 PM.


Bachu, they did that so that in case something didn't go well in one of the tapings, they would have the second one as a back-up. This way they could edit parts from one taping and splice them into the other taping for the best of both shows forming one episode.

This is especially noticeable if you're watching an episode and notice characters being in different positions when it cuts to a new camera angle (such as Mr. Bradley's infamous room position change in "The Return of Mr. Garrett", or Cindy and Sue Ann suddenly vanishing from their cafeteria chairs in "Front Page").

The Mr. Bradley position change is so odd. If you tape a show twice, you're going to want the characters in the same positions for both tapings. But it's like they had him go to the other side of the desk, for some reason. But his locations would presumably have been marked. John had worked on sitcoms for years. He knew how to hit his marks.

The Mr. Bradley position change is so odd. If you tape a show twice, you're going to want the characters in the same positions for both tapings. But it's like they had him go to the other side of the desk, for some reason. But his locations would presumably have been marked. John had worked on sitcoms for years. He knew how to hit his marks.

I know, I need a Dramamine for that scene! That could have been very poor directing. "Let's try you over here for this line!" WHICH MAKES NO SENSE. lol

I know, I need a Dramamine for that scene! That could have been very poor directing. "Let's try you over here for this line!" WHICH MAKES NO SENSE. lol

Exactly!!!!! :lol::lol::lol::lol:

How do you guys know so much about this 'taping things twice': have you ever watched it before the original taping came out or what? (i though they never aired anything until it was 100% satisfactory?)

How do you guys know so much about this 'taping things twice':

This info is mentioned in many books about TV in Hollywood, and of course millions of people have gone to these series tapings. Here's a report on a 1996 episode (https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1996/vp960829/08290062.htm) of Living Single.


have you ever watched it before the original taping came out or what? (i though they never aired anything until it was 100% satisfactory?)

I have been in studio audiences, but never for a sitcom, and was involved in the production of the Orlando tapings of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire and the 2005 ABC Christmas Special with Wayne Brady. Working with Wayne was wonderful, and he will forever be my hero.

If you ever get tickets to be in the live studio audience on a Hollywood sitcom, they warn you in advance that the tapings will be long.

In 2010, in Vegas, I got to be a test audience member for Hawaii 5-0 and a terrible show called... I forget what it was called, but it was like Elimidate. These weren't live studio audiences, but you gave feedback on what you were watching.

This info is mentioned in many books about TV in Hollywood, and of course millions of people have gone to these series tapings. Here's a report on a 1996 episode (https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1996/vp960829/08290062.htm) of Living Single.



I have been in studio audiences, but never for a sitcom, and was involved in the production of the Orlando tapings of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire and the 2005 ABC Christmas Special with Wayne Brady. Working with Wayne was wonderful, and he will forever be my hero.

If you ever get tickets to be in the live studio audience on a Hollywood sitcom, they warn you in advance that the tapings will be long.



Wow Retro!

Lucky you for having being there lol! (most of us can only dream about it)

patriot:patriot:patriot:patriot:patriot:patriot:patriot:patriot:patriot:patriot:

In 2010, in Vegas, I got to be a test audience member for Hawaii 5-0 and a terrible show called... I forget what it was called, but it was like Elimidate. These weren't live studio audiences, but you gave feedback on what you were watching.

Wow Retro!

Lucky you for having being there lol! (most of us can only dream about it)

patriot:patriot:patriot:patriot:patriot:patriot:patriot:patriot:patriot:


Have you ever been to a show taping in the UK? Do they mostly record in London?

How do you guys know so much about this 'taping things twice': have you ever watched it before the original taping came out or what? (i though they never aired anything until it was 100% satisfactory?)

In some episodes of shows you can tell certain parts were obviously from another "take", which turns out to be another taping. I first realized this in middle school when I was obsessively taping "Mama's Family". I would occasionally notice things that were "off" between camera cuts, so I realized those edits were from a different take and surmised that the show had two tapings.

The cast of the American classic variety show The Carol Burnett Show (1967-1978) frequently refers to their "twice taping" schedule on Fridays in many, many interviews online and on DVD. This is particularly evident when Tim Conway joined the cast. He was known for veering off in his own direction of unpredictable comedy. He would ask the director if he got all the shots he needed in the first taping. When the director said yes, then Tim would surprise the cast and crew during the second taping with comedy business he hadn't told anyone about. And the reactions from the cast to his antics in that second taping were genuine.

They did the Burnett variety show like a "live show" (like back in the old days of the '50s when TV was all live), so many blooper-type things happened in the show's first tapings that they'd try to fix for the second taping.

Also, back then in the '70s and '80s it was not infrequent for writers to change things between tapings of a show (variety or sitcom). You would do your first taping, then the writers would go over anything that needed improvement while the cast had their dinner break, then the director would give the cast notes for any changes that were made in the script for the second taping. For example, a different joke that would work better in a scene if one fell kinda flat in the first taping.

Have you ever been to a show taping in the UK? Do they mostly record in London?
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]



Nope, i have never been to a show taping: i think you need to be at least close to anything to do with this kind of job or acting for such thing to happen or? (Most jobs i had were in retail or the tourism industry lol!)

:so:so:so:so:so:so:so:so:so:so:so:so:so:so

Nope, i have never been to a show taping: i think you need to be at least close to anything to do with this kind of job or acting for such thing to happen or? (Most jobs i had were in retail or the tourism industry lol!)

Nope, here in the States, all you have to do is be close enough to get a ticket and go take a seat!

In some episodes of shows you can tell certain parts were obviously from another "take", which turns out to be another taping. I first realized this in middle school when I was obsessively taping "Mama's Family". I would occasionally notice things that were "off" between camera cuts, so I realized those edits were from a different take and surmised that the show had two tapings.

I remember figuring that out, too. Not on Mama's Family, but on other shows. Somebody would, for example, be wearing a necklace. Then the necklace would be gone. Then it would be back, and then gone again. :lol:

Nope, here in the States, all you have to do is be close enough to get a ticket and go take a seat!


Everything is possible in the UNITED STATE OF AMERICA guys: why do you thing they call it the American dream?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Everything is possible in the UNITED STATE OF AMERICA guys: why do you thing they call it the American dream?

You wouldn't say that if you lived here and saw the politics! :lol:

You wouldn't say that if you lived here and saw the politics! :lol:


Good one 80s!

:brent:brent:brent:brent:brent:brent:brent:brent:brent:brent:brent:brent

You wouldn't say that if you lived here and saw the politics! :lol:

Seriously. :lol:

Seriously. :lol:

One look at the politic forum proves that :lol:

One look at the politic forum proves that :lol:

:lol: My god. Someone said tonight that Rosa Parks' only accomplishment in life was not getting up. I mean, you just can't reason with someone like that.

Back to Facts: The Worst Witch was a funny movie, very similar, in some ways, to Harry Potter. Charlotte was great in it.

:lol: My god. Someone said tonight that Rosa Parks' only accomplishment in life was not getting up. I mean, you just can't reason with someone like that.

Sadly there are too many people around whom you can't reason with and stay stuck in their own ignorance. It's boggling.


Back to Facts: The Worst Witch was a funny movie, very similar, in some ways, to Harry Potter. Charlotte was great in it.

Team WW!

Back to 'The Worst Witch': i don't think i can get used to see CHARLOTTE/MRS G with white hair lol! (i know she kept her hair white in her later years, but no on FOL when she was just middle aged)

(i know she kept her hair white in her later years, but not on FOL when she was just middle aged)

She was old! :lol:

Okay, not really, but when you're watching it age 5 or 6, you think of her as a grandmother, lol.

She was old! :lol:

Okay, not really, but when you're watching it age 5 or 6, you think of her as a grandmother, lol.


If the WORST WITCH was from 1986 we were not 5 or 6 years old (maybe Lorsie was): most of us would be either pre -teens or teenagers lol!

:yeahthat:yeahthat:yeahthat:yeahthat:yeahthat:yeahthat:yeahthat:yeahthat

If the WORST WITCH was from 1986 we were not 5 or 6 years old (maybe Lorsie was): most of us would be either pre -teens or teenagers lol!

:yeahthat:yeahthat:yeahthat:yeahthat:yeahthat:yeahthat:yeahthat:yeahthat

Lol, I meant watching FOL, whenever you first started watching it. :) (for me, it was in the '80s, but I got to start fresh from the beginning in syndication)