...for a good 20 years (to get married and have kids) after The Facts of Life ended. I know that she claims that she was asked to read for the role of Rachel on Friends (to clarify, Lisa wasn't directly offered the role before Jennifer Aniston, she was only asked to audition).

yIC_whaNIsk

I wonder if Lisa got somewhat typecast as Blair Warner. What I mean is, she played a decidedly wholesome, clean-cut if rather snobby and prudish woman for so long (even though when TFOL started, Blair was ironically, much more promiscuous and rebellious acting) for so long and so well, that it would've been too jarring to see her stray too far from that image.

Somebody said before that she is good with physical comedy and I agree. It's probably why she preferred the later seasons while most preferred the earlier seasons. There was a lot of physical comedy/less serious storylines in the later ones and she was pretty good in it. I think she's pretty weak with the dramatic acting though. She's not good like Nancy Mckeon or Kim Fields. And I heard some criticism with Kim Field's "bad acting" and how she "overacts" but I think she's the 3rd best actress behind Nancy Mckeon and Molly Ringwald imo. That's why she was successful on Living Single and the show is still talked about and relevant today.

I think she would have focused on comedy too. I will agree her dramatic skills are very weak, I re-watched Less than Perfect, which was probably her most dramatic performance and it felt like a bad PSA for sleep deprivation.

I think she would have done well as a supporting character on a sitcom in the '90s but I doubt she could carry her own show, like the proposed spin-off in the series finale. I don't think her as Rachel on Friends would have worked anyway, she was far too conservative for that show.

If she had been on Friends instead of Jennifer Aniston, it would have been a very differant show.

If she had been on Friends instead of Jennifer Aniston, it would have been a very differant show.

Definitely. Way different. No sex between Paulo and Rachel. Or Ross and Rachel. or Rachel and... anyone. And Rachel would have been missing in any episode where two characters had sex outside of marriage. Which... I think was a lot of episodes. I won't say most episodes... but maybe half of the episodes?

Definitely. Way different. No sex between Paulo and Rachel. Or Ross and Rachel. or Rachel and... anyone. And Rachel would have been missing in any episode where two characters had sex outside of marriage. Which... I think was a lot of episodes. I won't say most episodes... but maybe half of the episodes?

Those are some very good points!

Those are some very good points!
Yeah, can you imagine a Friends with Rachel in only, like, half of the episodes? It would be, like, 5.5 friends instead of six.


Int. Scene: Central Perk:

Ross: [Sipping coffee] Where's Rachel?

Monica: Oh, she's got another... regatta gala.

Ross: That's the third one this week!

Yeah, can you imagine a Friends with Rachel in only, like, half of the episodes? It would be, like, 5.5 friends instead of six.


Int. Scene: Central Perk:

Ross: [Sipping coffee] Where's Rachel?

Monica: Oh, she's got another... regatta gala.

Ross: That's the third one this week!

That all sounds very amusing my friend!

Thanks! I amused myself with that one, too, actually. Just the idea of Lisa Whelchel skipping so many episodes, and the writers having to cover with goofy excuses makes me smile.

If she had been on Friends instead of Jennifer Aniston, it would have been a very differant show.

I wonder of Lisa's name was brought up because Nancy McKeon almost played Monica. She was (according to Warren Littlefield's book Top of the Rock) NBC and Warner Bros.' top choice but they allowed the creators to make the final call. Marta Kauffman chose Courteney Cox because according to Kauffman "Because we were casting an ensemble, there was something appealing about not casting Nancy McKeon."

I can imagine Nancy McKeon as Monica, but I CANNOT imagine Lisa as Rachel. Just does not compute.

She was (according to Warren Littlefield's book Top of the Rock) NBC and Warner Bros.' top choice

Well, according to Warren Littlefield's memory, there were also "10, 12 girls" on that first season of "Facts"!

Well, according to Warren Littlefield's memory, there were also "10, 12 girls" on that first season of "Facts"!
Well, this information didn't involve counting, so he might actually be right this time. :lol:

Well, this information didn't involve counting, so he might actually be right this time. :lol:

:rofl:

I wonder of Lisa's name was brought up because Nancy McKeon almost played Monica. She was (according to Warren Littlefield's book Top of the Rock) NBC and Warner Bros.' top choice but they allowed the creators to make the final call. Marta Kauffman chose Courteney Cox because according to Kauffman "Because we were casting an ensemble, there was something appealing about not casting Nancy McKeon."

I don't entirely understand what Marta Kauffman means when she says that there's something appealing about not casting Nancy McKeon. I hope that I'm not taking what she said out of context, but was wondering if that was supposed to be an affront about what she perceived to be about Nancy's skills/abilities as an actress.

Was Kauffman uncomfortable with casting Nancy because she was at the time "too recognizable", having been one of the leads of a long running NBC series and she ostensibly wanted unknowns? And if Nancy was cast, she would've by default or design, be pushed to the "front and center". But on the same token, The Facts of Life in itself, was an ensemble show about a group of friends, so that comment of Kauffman's doesn't hold much weight.

I don't entirely understand what Marta Kauffman means when she says that there's something appealing about not casting Nancy McKeon. I hope that I'm not taking what she said out of context, but was wondering if that was supposed to be an affront about what she perceived to be about Nancy's skills/abilities as an actress.

Was Kauffman uncomfortable with casting Nancy because she was at the time "too recognizable", having been one of the leads of a long running NBC series and she ostensibly wanted unknowns? And if Nancy was cast, she would've by default or design, be pushed to the "front and center". But on the same token, The Facts of Life in itself, was an ensemble show about a group of friends, so that comment of Kauffman's doesn't hold much weight.

Maybe by the time of Friends' casting, Nancy McKeon was becoming more known for her lead roles in sitcoms, as opposed to her time on FOL, where she was just one of the ensemble. There was Can't Hurry Love and maybe one or two other sitcoms where she was the lead.

It's good, in a way, that they went with Courteney Cox; Lisa Kudrow has stated that Courteney was the biggest name when Friends started, and Courteney set the tone for backstage relations between the Friends cast members. Lisa K has stated that Courteney urged the others to give each other notes on their performances, and Lisa K said that was crucial to the chemistry and rapport that the six of them built early on: they could feel free to say, "The way you delivered that joke the second time was funnier." This instant feedback allowed them to hone their skills, modify lines on the fly, ad-lib, and end up delivering a better, funnier performance. (Courteney had stolen this technique from Seinfeld.)

I don't entirely understand what Marta Kauffman means when she says that there's something appealing about not casting Nancy McKeon.

The way I interpret it is because Nancy was the breakout star on FOL, so Marta felt good about not casting a known name who was so much the "center of attention" on their previous show (FOL--more interviews, more press attention) and would therefore garner much more press attention and outshine the others, unbalancing the ensemble feel.

Maybe also because Nancy was known for TV movies (or at least one big one, certainly) so Marta liked not having "a name" mixed in with largely unknowns (a name much bigger than Courtney was at the time).

Also: If this is from Warren's book, we have to take his recollections with a grain of salt...or 10, 12 grains. ;)

:lol:

The way I interpret it is because Nancy was the breakout star on FOL, so Marta felt good about not casting a known name who was so much the "center of attention" on their previous show (FOL--more interviews, more press attention) and would therefore garner much more press attention and outshine the others, unbalancing the ensemble feel.

Maybe also because Nancy was known for TV movies (or at least one big one, certainly) so Marta liked not having "a name" mixed in with largely unknowns (a name much bigger than Courtney was at the time).

Also: If this is from Warren's book, we have to take his recollections with a grain of salt...or 10, 12 grains. ;)

Based on a couple of comments (https://www.datalounge.com/thread/13636967-why-didn-t-lisa-whelchel-parlay-her-tv-success) that I read online, Nancy McKeon would to put things nicely, worked Monica. Nancy probably would've made Monica completely humorless and not the show's backbone and arguably, funniest performer like Courteney Cox was able to do. I don't know for sure, if she ever routinely did this on The Facts of Life, but the comments that I described also argued Nancy always had that amateurish, self-aware look that made it obvious she was thinking "I am acting, I am acting" the whole time.