Does anyone think she might have been demanding, for lack of a better word, on set?

There are examples like downsizing Pamela Adlon’s role, throwing a script across the room because she objected to the story. Even Andy Borowitz, one of the season 5 writers, said in a MOTH story that no one wants to deal with an “angry Jo”.

I’m not bringing up the Season 6 strike because her mangers probably orchestrated it, and it was inevitably the right thing to do. Downsizing the Kelly role could have been an act of management too, but I’m not sure.

Just curious what others think.

If Nancy is the reason the character Kelly went away, we should send flowers or a basket of treats to her. Kelly was an imitation of Jo. It was ridiculous in season 5 they tried that again. Season 4 we had Alexandra that was like a version of Blair's character and then Kelly who's like Jo in season 5. We didn't need different versions of the same type of character. The show needed original characters which is something I like about Pippa even though she was annoying. She wasn't a copy of any of the characters in the show. Back to Pamela, I've never heard Nancy being involved with Pamela's dismissed though. I always heard, even from Pamela herself, that fans didn't like Kelly so that's why she was let go. She wasn't anything original for fans to like. We already had Jo being like Kelly's character.

What episode script did Nancy throw a fit to? I've never heard anything factual about this. The strike in season 6 has been addressed in behind the scenes specials like The E! True Hollywood Story so people pretty much know about that. Nancy knew she helped save The Facts of Life. Her character was a hit with fans so if she stood up for stuff, I hope it was reasonable and productive for the shows success.

No we didn’t need them, especially when we had characters like Molly, Nancy, Sue Ann who were different from the others

I don’t think the show is really worth watching without Jo, and the show only thrived because of her.

Even if the show didn’t need Kelly, it doesn’t sound like Pamela Adlon was treated well. Here’s an interview: https://www.alisonrosen.com/2013/08/ariynbf-199-with-pam-adlon/.
She starts talking about Facts around 47.00. She pretty much says everyone but Lisa and Nancy were civil to her. (Without saying it). Pamela also politely suggests that Nancy didn’t want the character on the show.

Alex Rocco tells the story about tossing the script in Nancy McKeon’s Intimate Portrait. This is from memory, but Jo was supposed to experience sudden wealth, and Nancy was opposed because that would squelch the Blair/Jo dynamic. She finally got so frustrated she threw the script across the room and walked out. This must have been “Big Time Charlie”.

I don’t think the show is really worth watching without Jo, and the show only thrived because of her.

Even if the show didn’t need Kelly, it doesn’t sound like Pamela Adlon was treated well. Here’s an interview: https://www.alisonrosen.com/2013/08/ariynbf-199-with-pam-adlon/.
She starts talking about Facts around 47.00. She pretty much says everyone but Lisa and Nancy were civil to her. (Without saying it). Pamela also politely suggests that Nancy didn’t want the character on the show.

Alex Rocco tells the story about tossing the script in Nancy McKeon’s Intimate Portrait. This is from memory, but Jo was supposed to experience sudden wealth, and Nancy was opposed because that would squelch the Blair/Jo dynamic. She finally got so frustrated she threw the script across the room and walked out. This must have been “Big Time Charlie”.

Yeah that was a weird episode, I could sort of u derstand her frustration

I don’t think the show is really worth watching without Jo, and the show only thrived because of her.

I disagree about "the show only thrived because of Jo".

In 1979, The Facts of Life was scheduled on Friday nights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979%E2%80%9380_United_States_network_television_schedule) against ABC's Fantasy Island and CBS's The Incredible Hulk. With that kind of competition, the show had no chance for decent ratings. It is notable that nearly all of NBC's other shows on Friday nights that season were cancelled.

When the show was moved, the following season, to Wednesdays following its parent show, Diff'rent Strokes, ratings suddenly improved. This would not have been possible if the reason for the show's success was Jo: people weren't tuning in to watch a new girl they didn't yet even know about, because they hadn't even seen the revamped show. You would instead have seen gradually improved ratings.

But the truth is that NBC's ratings for the first season of The Facts of Life improved over Summer 1980, as viewers had already watched the episodes of FI and TIH. This was reported in newspapers at the time. Nancy McKeon had absolutely nothing to do with the improved ratings in Summer 1980: her first episode didn't air until November.

I also disagree with you that the show is not worth watching without Jo. There are at least 15 episodes where Jo doesn't appear, and several others where Jo's role is minimal. And yet, some of those episodes are among my favorites.


Even if the show didn’t need Kelly, it doesn’t sound like Pamela Adlon was treated well. Here’s an interview: https://www.alisonrosen.com/2013/08/ariynbf-199-with-pam-adlon/.
She starts talking about Facts around 47.00. She pretty much says everyone but Lisa and Nancy were civil to her. (Without saying it). Pamela also politely suggests that Nancy didn’t want the character on the show.

I understand why Nancy wouldn't want a Jo clone on the show, but it's very sad that Pamela felt mistreated on the set by Nancy and/or Lisa. Their frustrations with the producers shouldn't have carried over onto their interactions with Pamela.

(Also, I had previously listened to that podcast, and came to the same conclusion about who Pamela was talking about in a veiled way).

If Nancy is the reason the character Kelly went away, we should send flowers or a basket of treats to her.
:lol: I'll chip in!! present:

I'll handmake a paper mache bust of Nancy in her honor, but only if Lorimar Television promises not to pinch off her nose! :lol:

I didn't like Kelly from the beginning, and I her unforgivable act was abusing and threatening and insulting Blair, bullying her into a crime victim, and smashing an item in Mrs. Garrett's store. That was the death knell for a character whom most fans probably didn't like anyway (like me). Whenever I watch later seasons and she comes up in the opening credits, I'm all like: :rolleyes:

And great info, Retro (I was waiting for you to chime in with that!). Mr. Gideon has taught you well! Indeed, better than he taught Jo! :lol: #toosoonjo? (lol)

I really can't blame Nancy. If it is true, so what if she threw a fit over the presence of Kelly's character? That makes Nancy more likeable in my eyes, because Kelly was such an unlikeable and unsympathetic character and also an almost complete clone of her character. She may have also felt threatened and been defensive because Kelly was so much like Jo, so I think it would be a natural reaction. To be honest, I think the audience would have the same reaction if they heard there were going to be more episodes with Kelly in it.

I've always heard from Lisa and Mindy that there was hardly any drama on set, and everyone got along very well, so I have a hard time believing the actress who played Kelly saying that she was mistreated. Maybe she was just bitter? Who are we going to believe, someone who was on during the entire run, or someone who was there for a few episodes?

Pinching her nose? What?! :eek::lol:

I’m guessing Nancy was a part of why Kelly was so unlikable in the first place, to make sure nobody liked her.

Alex Rocco tells the story about tossing the script in Nancy McKeon’s Intimate Portrait. This is from memory, but Jo was supposed to experience sudden wealth, and Nancy was opposed because that would squelch the Blair/Jo dynamic. She finally got so frustrated she threw the script across the room and walked out. This must have been “Big Time Charlie”.


I agree with Nancy on this. Look at the many episodes before Big Time Charlie where Jo is irritated by Blair's money. It wouldn't have made sense if they gave Jo money and turned her into a Blair type character. I'm glad she went against it. Big Time Charlie is actually one of the few episodes from season 7 I like though.


:lol: I'll chip in!! present:

I'll handmake a paper mache bust of Nancy in her honor, but only if Lorimar Television promises not to pinch off her nose! :lol:

I didn't like Kelly from the beginning, and I her unforgivable act was abusing and threatening and insulting Blair, bullying her into a crime victim, and smashing an item in Mrs. Garrett's store. That was the death knell for a character whom most fans probably didn't like anyway (like me). Whenever I watch later seasons and she comes up in the opening credits, I'm all like: :rolleyes:


Deal! :lol: Anyone who got rid of Kelly is awesome in my book.

That whole tough act with Blair in the store was over the top. It's one of my least favorite moments from the show.


I've always heard from Lisa and Mindy that there was hardly any drama on set, and everyone got along very well, so I have a hard time believing the actress who played Kelly saying that she was mistreated. Maybe she was just bitter? Who are we going to believe, someone who was on during the entire run, or someone who was there for a few episodes?


I wouldn't believe Pamela. I didn't listen to the interview posted in the thread but if it's the same one where she says Jami Gertz was fired from the show, she doesn't have all her facts right. Jami was a guest star for a few episodes in season 5, however Pamela said she was fired the previous year even though she wasn't in the show at that time. I think Pamela is just trying to stir up rumors to make the show look bad. I don't believe there was any drama on the set. Look how close the girls have stayed together over all these years. That wouldn't happen if there was chaos going on behind the scenes. Mindy said in the Paley interview what really helped them stay out of trouble was their families at home and having their own lives. I think that's one of the biggest key elements to childhood actors is having a strong supportive system at home to keep them on the right track.

Yes, we are just hearing Pamela’s side, but I can forgive the lapses in memory. If I were her, I would just want to get out of there and not look back. She also gave the interview 30 years later. She thought George Clooney was on the show before her. Memories get jumbled together, and she was in and out. Anyway, what does Pamela have to gain by stirring up rumors? I really like Pamela Adlon, and hated Kelly, but I kind of see Kelly in a different light after watching Better Things. She’s still not needed though...

I’m not sure what to make of Nancy being a tough customer. She did obviously knew her value, and so did her management. Look at the “and” credit. Maybe ratings would have improved without her with different writers and a new time slot, but the Blair/Jo relationship really boosted the show. Mindy even said in an interview that the other girls couldn’t service a role like Jo; not putting them down, I rewatch Se01 once in a while. They all seem like they are at peace with the way things turned out, too.

Pinching her nose? What?! :eek::lol:


'80s is referencing the Jermaine Jackson episode. Clever, '80s! :lol:

Yes, we are just hearing Pamela’s side, but I can forgive the lapses in memory. If I were her, I would just want to get out of there and not look back. She also gave the interview 30 years later. She thought George Clooney was on the show before her. Memories get jumbled together, and she was in and out. Anyway, what does Pamela have to gain by stirring up rumors?

I appreciate Pamela Adlon telling her side of the story, and agree that she's got no motive to tell untruths. The fact is that we know Felice has said the producers sort of... didn't follow through on their promises. We know Molly has said basically the same thing. Geri, too, began to feel unwelcome. And here we have Pamela saying she felt unwelcome on the set.

It's great that Mindy, Lisa, Kim, and Nancy feel there was no drama on the set. But as the Core Four, they were central to the show, and other actors weren't quite treated that way.


I’m not sure what to make of Nancy being a tough customer. She did obviously knew her value, and so did her management. Look at the “and” credit. Maybe ratings would have improved without her with different writers and a new time slot, but the Blair/Jo relationship really boosted the show.

You don't understand: ratings had already improved over Summer 1980, before Jo was even added. The Blair/Jo dynamic was great, but it cannot explain the ratings boost before Jo was even on the show.


Mindy even said in an interview that the other girls couldn’t service a role like Jo; not putting them down, I rewatch Se01 once in a while. They all seem like they are at peace with the way things turned out, too.

Molly wasn't. For 30 years, she didn't speak of the show, and her last word about the show in 1986 was that her cameo appearance was her "worst job ever". She's slowly coming around, but it was very hard for her to even speak of her experiences.

The winners write history. In this case, we have many, many interviews with the Core Four stating there was never any drama. But we also have interviews from Felice, Molly, Pamela, and Geri suggesting that they felt promises were broken, or they felt unwelcome, etc. And that's not good.

I wouldn't believe Pamela.

I do. There are too many similarities between her story, Felice's story, Geri's story, and Molly's story: the producers weren't honest with them, they felt excluded by other members of the cast, they felt unwelcome, the offer of roles dried up, and eventually they left the show.

They are variations of the same thing: the producers decided who they wanted, other girls were excluded, and the actresses felt somewhat disrespected. Pamela blamed Nancy and Lisa ("I felt unwelcome by them", paraphrased). Geri blamed Charlotte ("She would welcome me and then not welcome me", paraphrased). Molly blamed Mindy ("I felt intimidated by her", paraphrased). Felice correctly blamed the producers ("They promised so many things", paraphrased.)


I don't believe there was any drama on the set.

The Core Four say that, but they also say things like there was no line-counting, and both John Lawlor and Felice have contradicted that in their interviews.

Lisa never needed to count her lines: she always had plenty.

John Lawlor, Felice, Molly, Pamela, Julie Pie, Julie Anne, Geri, and others had a very different experience. It doesn't mean they were lying; it means they had a different experience on the same set.

Maybe she was just bitter? Who are we going to believe, someone who was on during the entire run, or someone who was there for a few episodes?

Someone who was only there for a few episodes.

What she is saying is that she felt unwelcome, and other actors have stated the same thing. I totally believe that Pamela felt unwelcome, because Geri and Molly have said variations on the same thing.

Ultimately, it was the producers who decided who would be welcome and who would not. But Nancy and Lisa may have exacerbated or telegraphed things, in Pamela's case. Nancy's fits about scripts may have intimidated a young girl. Lisa certainly felt comfortable enough by then to decline scripts if they didn't meet her puritanical standards.

But other actresses didn't have the same experience, and their experiences are no less genuine.

And great info, Retro (I was waiting for you to chime in with that!). Mr. Gideon has taught you well! Indeed, better than he taught Jo! :lol: #toosoonjo? (lol)

Thank you, '80s!

'80s is referencing the Jermaine Jackson episode. Clever, '80s! :lol:

Oh man, I forgot that! :lol:
I appreciate Pamela Adlon telling her side of the story, and agree that she's got no motive to tell untruths. The fact is that we know Felice has said the producers sort of... didn't follow through on their promises. We know Molly has said basically the same thing. Geri, too, began to feel unwelcome. And here we have Pamela saying she felt unwelcome on the set.

Not to mention sweet Julie Pie saying how she wanted to say goodbye to everyone and thank them after being let go, only to be told "that isn't how this works. Bye"

That whole tough act with Blair in the store was over the top. It's one of my least favorite moments from the show.

Agreed!!

Let's not forget Molly blamed those darn producers for not bringing her back as part of the main cast in season 2 as they allegedly "promised"!


The Core Four say that, but they also say things like there was no line-counting, and both John Lawlor and Felice have contradicted that in their interviews.

Lisa never needed to count her lines: she always had plenty.

John Lawlor, Felice, Molly, Pamela, Julie Pie, Julie Anne, Geri, and others had a very different experience. It doesn't mean they were lying; it means they had a different experience on the same set.

It means Lisa was lying. ;) lol...well, maybe not lying, but it was her experience there was no line-counting. Apparently she never saw any of her 6 young co-stars counting their lines, but we don't know for sure.

What she is saying is that she felt unwelcome, and other actors have stated the same thing. I totally believe that Pamela felt unwelcome, because Geri and Molly have said variations on the same thing.
Well, Molly simply felt intimidated by Mindy, and we don't know why (but I love that they've met since the old "Facts" days and had a lovely meeting). I think the big thing here (going by the comments, as I won't listen to the interview) is that apparently Pamela felt snubbed Lisa and Nancy, and no one has ever said anything about them seeming that way before.

Oh man, I forgot that! :lol:
You didn't get my reference?? What, was "PAPER MACHE BUST" not direct enough? :rofl:



Not to mention sweet Julie Pie saying how she wanted to say goodbye to everyone and thank them after being let go, only to be told "that isn't how this works. Bye"

Lol, oh, poor Julie!

Not to mention sweet Julie Pie saying how she wanted to say goodbye to everyone and thank them after being let go, only to be told "that isn't how this works. Bye"

Another excellent point, Lorimar! And seriously, how difficult would it have been for the producers to have issued a few free tickets to the Lost Girls so they could come to the first taping? It would have cost the producers nothing, and would have been a nice gesture. Then the girls could have said their farewells for a few minutes in the after-show. Super-simple.

Let's not forget Molly blamed those darn producers for not bringing her back as part of the main cast in season 2 as they allegedly "promised"!

Yet another good point.


It means Lisa was lying. ;) lol...well, maybe not lying, but it was her experience there was no line-counting. Apparently she never saw any of her 6 young co-stars counting their lines, but we don't know for sure.

Well, I suppose they wouldn't have been doing it aloud, rather to themselves as they made note of their respective lines. So maybe Lisa was too busy learning her lines (and reading books!) to see that some of her co-workers were troubled by the number of their lines.

maybe Lisa was too busy learning her lines (and reading books!) to see that some of her co-workers were troubled by the number of their lines.
Haha, good point, Lisa had SO MANY LINES as Blair, she didn't have time to notice all the girls around her with their pencils going down their scripts circling and counting their lines! :lol:

Well, Molly simply felt intimidated by Mindy, and we don't know why (but I love that they've met since the old "Facts" days and had a lovely meeting).

I'm glad they were able to meet, get over old feelings, and realize they're both great people. I wonder if it happened fairly recently, like before Molly's 2016 appearance wishing Charlotte happy birthday... or some other time?


I think the big thing here (going by the comments, as I won't listen to the interview) is that apparently Pamela felt snubbed Lisa and Nancy, and no one has ever said anything about them seeming that way before.

Except the other girls always said it annoyed them when Lisa would read her books on the set, which might have made Pamela feel like she was aloof. And since Alex has stated that Nancy did throw scripts around when she didn't like them, these things might have felt intimidating for a young girl.

I think the set was probably pleasant overall.

I wasn’t event think of Geri Jewel and Molly Ringwald. It sounds like Geri Jewel was treated poorly by the end. I think Molly Ringwald was part of the original cut, but like she says in that “couch” interview, they wanted someone closer to Lisa Whelchel’s age. So I understand her hurt; Felice Schacter’s too, for that matter. My question is how would Molly, Blair, Natalie, and Tootie have been isolated from the. Other girls for 8 more seasons? I can’t see them dating each other to go to the Chugalug and getting arrested.

I'm glad they were able to meet, get over old feelings, and realize they're both great people. I wonder if it happened fairly recently, like before Molly's 2016 appearance wishing Charlotte happy birthday... or some other time?

I'll ask her when we have lunch! :D


Except the other girls always said it annoyed them when Lisa would read her books on the set

Well, they didn't "always" say that, it was just for a brief period during the cafeteria seasons. It was resolved pretty quickly.


And since Alex has stated that Nancy did throw scripts around when she didn't like them

Wait, scripts, or a script? Because plural makes her sound like a diva, when we haven't heard that she is from anyone else.

My question is how would Molly, Blair, Natalie, and Tootie have been isolated from the. Other girls for 8 more seasons? I can’t see them daring each other to go to the Chugalug and getting arrested.
Maybe Blair would have dared Molly to take her little guitar and sing a folk song at the Chug-a-Lug!

"Bartenders can't be trusteeeeed
My glass feels like it's busteeeed
Boy am I disgusteeeeed,
I got a right to sing the bluuuuuues!"

You didn't get my reference?? What, was "PAPER MACHE BUST" not direct enough? :rofl:



Haha I forgot about the bust! Ik Ik, I'll see myself out. *Hangs head in shame*.


Another excellent point, Lorimar! And seriously, how difficult would it have been for the producers to have issued a few free tickets to the Lost Girls so they could come to the first taping? It would have cost the producers nothing, and would have been a nice gesture. Then the girls could have said their farewells for a few minutes in the after-show. Super-simple.
I know! I get it being show biz, but damn!

Maybe Blair would have dared Molly to take her little guitar and sing a folk song at the Chug-a-Lug!

"Bartenders can't be trusteeeeed
My glass feels like it's busteeeed
Boy am I disgusteeeeed,
I got a right to sing the bluuuuuues!"

:rofl:

Well, they didn't "always" say that, it was just for a brief period during the cafeteria seasons. It was resolved pretty quickly.

They've always maintained that was an annoying period.


Wait, scripts, or a script? Because plural makes her sound like a diva, when we haven't heard that she is from anyone else.

I think even one thrown script seems diva-like, as does one refusal to appear in an episode, due to personal beliefs.

Nancy and Lisa knew their jobs were safe. The producers were so enamored of them, and their characters, that they even attempted to create mini-Jo and mini-Blair versions of their characters. But other actors didn't have the same experience, and left the show with their own impressions.

I was a little disturbed, in this thread, to see fans of the show say things like, "Don't believe so-and-so. She was only on the show for a little while. She can't be believed" (paraphrased). We've heard from enough people that not everyone felt comfortable and happy: that some people had a less than great experience, and their experiences are no less genuine than the experiences of the Core Four.

Indeed, even Charlotte Rae began to feel unwelcome, as she's stated that she felt that the show had shifted to the Core Four, and began to leave her behind, as the scripts focused more and more on those girls and less on her.

They've always maintained that was an annoying period.

I've only heard it in one, maybe two documentaries. But that's beside the point, which is it was not an extended period. It was a brief blip on the FOL scene.


I think even one thrown script seems diva-like

Ha, true, but I was just overwhelmed at the thought of Nancy "constantly" throwing scripts. I couldn't picture that.

I haven’t seen it in a long time, but the “Truth Behind the Sitcoms” from 2000ish had some bitter interviews, particularly from Geri and Kim. It must have been the editing. It came off as negative as Diff’rent Strokes.

Oh, and the script-tossing story was just about the “Big Time Charlie episode.

I haven’t seen it in a long time, but the “Truth Behind the Sitcoms” from 2000ish had some bitter interviews, particularly from Geri and Kim. It must have been the editing. It came off as negative as Diff’rent Strokes.
I remember that, and seeing and recording the FOL installment of "Cast Confessions" when it originally aired. :) Unfortunately my DVR lost it when it over-recorded for some summer Olympics several years ago. :(

I haven’t seen it in a long time, but the “Truth Behind the Sitcoms” from 2000ish had some bitter interviews, particularly from Geri and Kim. It must have been the editing. It came off as negative as Diff’rent Strokes.


I remember the bitterness from Geri, but she was equally bitter in The E! True Hollywood Story. What was Kim bitter about?

I remember the bitterness from Geri, but she was equally bitter in The E! True Hollywood Story. What was Kim bitter about?
I'm not sure if this is what Sitcommania is referencing, but what kinds to my mind is when they talk about adding cast members in the later seasons and Kim got all, "They kept adding more people as the years went on, and I told them, 'Do y'all remember when we started this show and you guys cut half the cast??' "

I'm not sure if this is what Sitcommania is referencing, but what kinds to my mind is when they talk about adding cast members in the later seasons and Kim got all, "They kept adding more people as the years went on, and I told them, 'Do y'all remember when we started this show and you guys cut half the cast??' "

I remember that. But I wouldn't call that bitter.

I remember that. But I wouldn't call that bitter.
I said I wasn't sure if that's what they were referencing, but it's the closest thing I can think of.

Yeah, if you're gonna add anyone how about Felice and the Julies?

I said I wasn't sure if that's what they were referencing, but it's the closest thing I can think of.
Yes, I know. :)

I finally got around to listening to the full Pamela Aldon interview. A lot to unpack here, lol.

I wouldn't believe Pamela. I didn't listen to the interview posted in the thread but if it's the same one where she says Jami Gertz was fired from the show, she doesn't have all her facts right. Jami was a guest star for a few episodes in season 5, however Pamela said she was fired the previous year even though she wasn't in the show at that time.

I listened to the full interview and I certainly don't believe all of her interview and yeah, it's that interview where she talks about Jami. Her memory is all over the place. She said Jami did a season and got canned. She didn't even remember that Jami's character's name was Boots. They were actually on the same season, and then later in the interview she said George Clooney was on the show before her, which isn't true. She said she did The Jeffersons before the show, but it was actually during or after the fact. Then she said she was only in 7 episodes of season, but she was actually in 12. She basically belittled and lied about her experience to make her story look more credible and to be more sympathetic to her experience. She didn't have her "Facts" straight :lol:

I think Pamela is just trying to stir up rumors to make the show look bad. I don't believe there was any drama on the set. Look how close the girls have stayed together over all these years. That wouldn't happen if there was chaos going on behind the scenes. Mindy said in the Paley interview what really helped them stay out of trouble was their families at home and having their own lives. I think that's one of the biggest key elements to childhood actors is having a strong supportive system at home to keep them on the right track.

I would agree that it felt like she was stirring up rumors. I just thought a lot of her answers were based on her emotions/her bitterness and very little to do with actual facts. It felt like she exaggerated her experience and she was trying to burn every bridge possible because her interviewer made her feel so much at ease that she totally felt comfortable and safe to during her interview with her. Unless that's actually her personality to be completely open and confrontational about everything. I don't know much about her as a person though other than from this interview so I can't say for sure.

But I'm not saying that everyone's experience on set was positive, like Retro had mentioned before, the Lost Girls had these negative experiences as well (and it's because of the changing dynamics of the show).

Also, the riff didn't seem to be between the "Core 4.” It was between her, the producers, Nancy McKeon and Lisa Whelchel and some other teacher. She said someone from NBC was red inking her lines every week and trying to get rid of her. She also had said she had a bad experience with a teacher on set who said she had a foul mouth and at one point in the interview, not to her face, she called a teacher the C word. She said the producers made her feel uncomfortable and unwelcome, and that she wasn't very close with Blair and Jo. Apparently, they weren't very nice to her, but Mindy, Kim, and Charlotte were. She even said that she saw a similar negative experience happen with Charlotte and Geri, who near the end of the show, felt unwelcome. I can understand, since their roles in the show seemed like they were diminishing.

Nancy and Lisa knew their jobs were safe. The producers were so enamored of them, and their characters, that they even attempted to create mini-Jo and mini-Blair versions of their characters. But other actors didn't have the same experience, and left the show with their own impressions.

That's true. The producers loved Blair and Jo. They had mini versions of Jo and Blair in "New York, New York" and they even tried to spin-off a Jo clone in the episode "Jo's Cousin," but it didn't happen for whatever reason. Pamela seemed very bitter that that didn't happen because apparently she said she auditioned for the part and got the part. It wasn't true that she got this part because the part went to Megan Follows. So I'm not sure how she thought that she was in that episode? Her memory seems be have faded or something. She blurs the character Terry, Jo's Cousin, with Kelly, a completely different character; the one we all know she played.

The clones of those characters were just an all-around bad idea. This show was symptomatic of the "Cousin Oliver" syndrome.

I was a little disturbed, in this thread, to see fans of the show say things like, "Don't believe so-and-so. She was only on the show for a little while. She can't be believed" (paraphrased). We've heard from enough people that not everyone felt comfortable and happy: that some people had a less than great experience, and their experiences are no less genuine than the experiences of the Core Four.

I would be a little disturbed about fans who aren't skeptical about the truth of her answers and the genuity of her experience. I'll correct myself and say, it's not so much that I don't trust her less because she was on the show shorter than the "Core 4.” Iit's just that I've heard completely opposite experiences from the "Core 4" because they were on the show longer than her. That made me kind of skeptical as to the truthfulness of her answers. Maybe it's because we have this "halo effect" about the "Core 4.” They’ve always said there was no drama on set and we always want to think that it was positive but obviously that isn't the case given the "lost girls" and "canned girls" testimonials. Pamela said the "Core 4" were very cliquey. It could be that the "Core 4" were threatened or hostile to new characters that were being brought on board.

I'm also not saying she didn't have a different experience, or a negative experience. I understand everyone's experience is not going to be the same and pleasant. I understand that the negative experiences could be a product of the show's changing dynamics. Pam’s interview certainly opened my eyes, but I will disagree and say that her experience did feel less genuine because some of her facts were wrong and she was very callous, exaggerated, and scandalous about a lot of the experiences she brought up. It felt like she was stretching the truth so that people would feel more sympathetic to her experience. She even said she was too young to process the workplace politics of everything going on, so this could have played a part in distorting her experience.

At one point she called being like hanging out on set was like hanging with the characters of Goodfellas :lol: :eek:

I don't get the comparison but apparently she said the "Core 4" were so full of themselves (they used a more vulgar term), that the producers did nothing to drown their egos or bring them down to Earth. She compared the "Core 4" to Henry Hill from Goodfellas who had an excessive stash of coke :eek: (I haven't seen the movie but it didn't sound good and it sounds like it's exaggerated). I find this super hard to believe if true. The “Core 4" had said behind the scenes was pretty much squeaky clean and none of them were really drama queens or line-counters. Although, not exactly true about the squeaky clean backstage stuff, because their weight was highly contentious during the show.

If anything, I don't think any of the girls are to blame. From the interviews we've heard from these "lost cast members," it seemed like the producers were creating a very hostile and disagreeable work environment. Whenever the dynamic of the show changed, they weren't treating everyone with the respect that they deserved and needed. Whenever they were trying to make any change in the dynamic of the show, it seems like they didn't handle it properly and/or something didn't go their way, and people got upset. I realize not everyone is going to get their way, but from my time listening to these interviews, it sounds like they didn't handle the parties that didn't get their way very well. The "Core 4" were put on a pedestal that they were free or had very few negative experiences.

What I've noticed about actors is they have very bad memories when it comes to shows they were actually in. Look at Jason Bateman who thinks Valerie Harper's character died in a fire on The Hogan Family. I always thought it was kind of funny that fans know more about the shows than the actors who actually starred in them. lol

As for what happened behind the scenes none of us really know the truth. The core 4 have only good memories but some of the other cast do not.

Wow, so much to respond to! :)

*cracks knuckles*


I listened to the full interview and I certainly don't believe all of her interview and yeah, it's that interview where she talks about Jami. Her memory is all over the place. She said Jami did a season and got canned. She didn't even remember that Jami's character's name was Boots. They were actually on the same season, and then later in the interview she said George Clooney was on the show before her, which isn't true. She said she did The Jeffersons before the show, but it was actually during or after the fact. Then she said she was only in 7 episodes of season, but she was actually in 12. She basically belittled and lied about her experience to make her story look more credible and to be more sympathetic to her experience. She didn't have her "Facts" straight :lol:

Well, she was on the show about 35 years ago... what do you expect?

Memories fade, and she clearly wasn't accessing IMDb in order to tell her story; just as we wouldn't expect Charlotte to get every detail right (she called Julie Piekarski Julie McWhirter), we can't expect perfect recall.


I would agree that it felt like she was stirring up rumors. I just thought a lot of her answers were based on her emotions/her bitterness and very little to do with actual facts. It felt like she exaggerated her experience and she was trying to burn every bridge possible because her interviewer made her feel so much at ease that she totally felt comfortable and safe to during her interview with her. Unless that's actually her personality to be completely open and confrontational about everything. I don't know much about her as a person though other than from this interview so I can't say for sure.

But I'm not saying that everyone's experience on set was positive, like Retro had mentioned before, the Lost Girls had these negative experiences as well (and it's because of the changing dynamics of the show).

I actually appreciate getting a different perspective, even if it's considerably counter to what we've heard from the Core Four. They always act like things were so hum-drum and boring on the set, and so I appreciate other perspectives, even if those perspectives are worn away by time, and tinged with a little bitterness.


Also, the riff didn't seem to be between the "Core 4.” It was between her, the producers, Nancy McKeon and Lisa Whelchel and some other teacher. She said someone from NBC was red inking her lines every week and trying to get rid of her.

Probably Warren "too many girls" Littlefield, who thought adding a 1,000th girl was excessive. :lol:

I kid, I kid! But I do believe that Pamela's parts were whittled down by someone, because we saw the same thing three seasons earlier when Molly accepted her part in "The New Girl, Part 2", and the final version of her role was smaller. We've seen the original script, and we saw what actually aired: we know her role shrunk between scripting and the first airing. We've also seen Felice's part in "Overachieving" whittled down even further in syndication.


She also had said she had a bad experience with a teacher on set who said she had a foul mouth and at one point in the interview, not to her face, she called a teacher the C word. She said the producers made her feel uncomfortable and unwelcome, and that she wasn't very close with Blair and Jo. Apparently, they weren't very nice to her, but Mindy, Kim, and Charlotte were. She even said that she saw a similar negative experience happen with Charlotte and Geri, who near the end of the show, felt unwelcome. I can understand, since their roles in the show seemed like they were diminishing.

I blame the producers: in every case, what it came down to was the producers only offered Geri one episode, the producers told Molly she could come back and then reneged, the producers offered Felice so many things and then broke their promises, and the producers made Pamela feel unwelcome on the set.

I'm not saying there wasn't script-throwing or book-reading on set, but ultimately it was up to the producers to set the tone, and they didn't treat some people very well.


That's true. The producers loved Blair and Jo. They had mini versions of Jo and Blair in "New York, New York" and they even tried to spin-off a Jo clone in the episode "Jo's Cousin," but it didn't happen for whatever reason. Pamela seemed very bitter that that didn't happen because apparently she said she auditioned for the part and got the part. It wasn't true that she got this part because the part went to Megan Follows. So I'm not sure how she thought that she was in that episode? Her memory seems be have faded or something. She blurs the character Terry, Jo's Cousin, with Kelly, a completely different character; the one we all know she played.

The clones of those characters were just an all-around bad idea. This show was symptomatic of the "Cousin Oliver" syndrome.

Yeah, clearly, Pamela is wrong about her landing the role of Jo's cousin, unless the part was somehow recast.


I would be a little disturbed about fans who aren't skeptical about the truth of her answers and the genuity of her experience. I'll correct myself and say, it's not so much that I don't trust her less because she was on the show shorter than the "Core 4.” Iit's just that I've heard completely opposite experiences from the "Core 4" because they were on the show longer than her. That made me kind of skeptical as to the truthfulness of her answers. Maybe it's because we have this "halo effect" about the "Core 4.”

I've never believed everything was 100% squeaky clean on set; we have enough stories from the actors who didn't last on the show to know better. Geri's book is quite juicy in that respect.


They’ve always said there was no drama on set and we always want to think that it was positive but obviously that isn't the case given the "lost girls" and "canned girls" testimonials. Pamela said the "Core 4" were very cliquey. It could be that the "Core 4" were threatened or hostile to new characters that were being brought on board.

The Core Four grew up together, and obviously became very close. I know Kim has stated she saw no need to add new characters when the producers had already jettisoned the Lost Girls, and it's kind of hard to argue with that: if the cast was "too big", and then half of the characters were axed, then it's silly to then turn around and say the cast is "too small" and more characters are needed.

It's funny because Pamela indicates that Lisa and Nancy were cliquey, yet Molly says Mindy was intimidating. And Geri says Charlotte would alternately accept and reject her. Does no-one have anything bad to say about Kim?! :lol:


I'm also not saying she didn't have a different experience, or a negative experience. I understand everyone's experience is not going to be the same and pleasant. I understand that the negative experiences could be a product of the show's changing dynamics. Pam’s interview certainly opened my eyes, but I will disagree and say that her experience did feel less genuine because some of her facts were wrong and she was very callous, exaggerated, and scandalous about a lot of the experiences she brought up. It felt like she was stretching the truth so that people would feel more sympathetic to her experience. She even said she was too young to process the workplace politics of everything going on, so this could have played a part in distorting her experience.

At one point she called being like hanging out on set was like hanging with the characters of Goodfellas :lol: :eek:

I don't get the comparison but apparently she said the "Core 4" were so full of themselves (they used a more vulgar term), that the producers did nothing to drown their egos or bring them down to Earth. She compared the "Core 4" to Henry Hill from Goodfellas who had an excessive stash of coke :eek: (I haven't seen the movie but it didn't sound good and it sounds like it's exaggerated). I find this super hard to believe if true. The “Core 4" had said behind the scenes was pretty much squeaky clean and none of them were really drama queens or line-counters. Although, not exactly true about the squeaky clean backstage stuff, because their weight was highly contentious during the show.

If anything, I don't think any of the girls are to blame. From the interviews we've heard from these "lost cast members," it seemed like the producers were creating a very hostile and disagreeable work environment. Whenever the dynamic of the show changed, they weren't treating everyone with the respect that they deserved and needed. Whenever they were trying to make any change in the dynamic of the show, it seems like they didn't handle it properly and/or something didn't go their way, and people got upset. I realize not everyone is going to get their way, but from my time listening to these interviews, it sounds like they didn't handle the parties that didn't get their way very well. The "Core 4" were put on a pedestal that they were free or had very few negative experiences.

While I definitely understand why the producers would put the Core Four on a pedestal (they had talent, they were well-liked by the audience, and they had influence at NBC by the mid-1980s), it's sad that so little attention was given to other regulars or semi-regulars on the show.

What I've noticed about actors is they have very bad memories when it comes to shows they were actually in. Look at Jason Bateman who thinks Valerie Harper's character died in a fire on The Hogan Family. I always thought it was kind of funny that fans know more about the shows than the actors who actually starred in them. lol

That's so true! Sandy and Jason got almost nothing right when they recollected the story. Lorimar and I laughed soooo hard when we were listening.


As for what happened behind the scenes none of us really know the truth. The core 4 have only good memories but some of the other cast do not.

I believe it was somewhere in between, and not everyone had the same good experience.

Julie McWhirter?! WTF Charlotte? :mad:

That's so true! Sandy and Jason got almost nothing right when they recollected the story. Lorimar and I laughed soooo hard when we were listening.



I sure did! :brent

Julie McWhirter?! WTF Charlotte? :mad:


I know, right?! But how can we be mad at Charlotte? She was 91 when she did that interview.

I know, right?! But how can we be mad at Charlotte? She was 91 when she did that interview.
Haha Ik, but you would think she would remember sweet Julie Pie!

Haha Ik, but you would think she would remember sweet Julie Pie!

Well, they hadn't worked together in ~38 years, at that point. I was just glad she got the "Julie" part right!

Well, they hadn't worked together in ~38 years, at that point. I was just glad she got the "Julie" part right!

I would like to think they kept in touch though. Julie stayed close with Kim and she and Lisa have a long history as well.

I would like to think they kept in touch though. Julie stayed close with Kim and she and Lisa have a long history as well.

I think if there's anyone who kept in touch with the majority of the cast, it would have been Julie Pie. As you correctly point out, her 40-year friendship with Kim is still rock-solid: Julie's daughter was even fairly recently babysitting Kim's daughter. And clearly, she's still close with Lisa, too. (Once a Mouseketeer, always a Mouseketeer, I bet!) And Mindy, too, has nice things to say about Julie. I strongly suspect that Julie was keeping in touch with as many people as possible when she made trips to California.

The key thing to remember about people who are fired from a job is that they are bitter and lie about things to make them look good and the employer / remaining employees look bad. I take everything the ones who were let go from this show say with a grain of salt. If we were to believe them, then we should believe every other actor who was fired from a show. Shannen Doherty would love this :lol: Although with Charmed, I do believe her because of the direction the show took that she started talking about before her termination.

With The Facts of Life, why I have trouble believing Pamela is because of the things she said that weren't true. Example Jami getting fired. Jami has been relevant in Hollywood for many years. She's never once mentioned anything to state that is true. Plus Jami was a guest star the same season Pamela was on, she wasn't a regular. Also Pamela has been relevant in Hollywood for decades. She even reunited with Mindy on one of the Scooby-Doo cartoons. Why is she waiting until now to mention this? Part of me wonders if the interviewer asked her to make up stories to get people to listen to her show. It doesn't make sense to wait over 30 years to say "Oh yeah I was treated like crap on that show and had two cast members hate me". It doesn't add up. I think she was making stuff up for her interview to get people to listen.

The key thing to remember about people who are fired from a job is that they are bitter and lie about things to make them look good and the employer / remaining employees look bad.

I don't believe that. At all.

If someone is bitter about a job where they were fired, they likely have reasons to be bitter.


I take everything the ones who were let go from this show say with a grain of salt.

There are enough grains of salt to see the pattern: an actress comes on the show, she's promised so much by the producers, but then the producers decide it isn't working out, the actress notices she has fewer lines, she talks to the producers and they make lame excuses, she feels rejected by some of the other cast members, and then she finds out she won't be on the next season, then the producers say she can come back as a guest star, but it's really a two-minute cameo, and it's only an offer for a single episode, which feels insulting; the actress notices they didn't even bother to get the character's last name right, and the number of lines has been pared down. She says she'd like to say farewell, but is told, "That's not how this works." This was a pattern that repeated over and over, with slight variations, for many years on The Facts of Life.

If we were to believe them, then we should believe every other actor who was fired from a show.

We don't have to believe every actor who was fired from any show to see that there was a pattern on The Facts of Life, and many actors who left noticed and have reported the pattern in their interviews: John Lawlor, Felice Schachter, Molly Ringwald, Pamela Adlon, Geri Jewell, Julie Piekarski, George Clooney, and even Charlotte Rae have all reported on parts of that pattern.


With The Facts of Life, why I have trouble believing Pamela is because of the things she said that weren't true. Example Jami getting fired. Jami has been relevant in Hollywood for many years. She's never once mentioned anything to state that is true. Plus Jami was a guest star the same season Pamela was on, she wasn't a regular. Also Pamela has been relevant in Hollywood for decades.

I don't see what "being relevant in Hollywood" has to do with actors discussing their experiences on TFOL.


She even reunited with Mindy on one of the Scooby-Doo cartoons. Why is she waiting until now to mention this?

I don't know that this is the only time Pamela has brought this up; what is the evidence that she's never mentioned any of this before? (That's exactly what was said by critics of Christina Crawford, despite there being an article as early as 1960 that discussed her and her mother's estrangement: "Why is she only bringing it up now?"). More to the point, even if I were to find an earlier interview where Pamela talks about her bad experience on TFOL, would it change your mind? If it wouldn't, then the fact that she only brought it up now is irrelevant.


Part of me wonders if the interviewer asked her to make up stories to get people to listen to her show.

For a few extra clicks? Pamela and the interviewer are lying so that a podcast will get a few more clicks? Is Molly also lying? And Felice and Julie? Come on. Not all of these actors are lying.

Pamela believed that Nancy's protests about the mini-me character of Kelly were about her rather than her character, and it's easy for me to understand why: the writers didn't do a good job with Kelly, the character was unlikable, and Pamela was eventually let go.

That's true. The producers loved Blair and Jo. They had mini versions of Jo and Blair in "New York, New York"

I don't think he meant that, because they were contemporary peers of Blair and Jo who didn't grow the way Blair and Jo did due to their fortunate Eastland experience. I assumed he was talking about Kelly and Alexandra.


she feels rejected by some of the other cast members

Not "rejected", intimidated, and not "some", one. ;)

I don't think he meant that, because they were contemporary peers of Blair and Jo who didn't grow the way Blair and Jo did due to their fortunate Eastland experience. I assumed he was talking about Kelly and Alexandra.

That's who I was talking about, true.


Not "rejected", intimidated, and not "some", one. ;)

No, I was including Geri, who said she alternately felt accepted and rejected by Charlotte. But, again, I believe this was a result of the producers not being honest with Geri, minimizing her role, offering her only one episode, and then never mentioning the character again after Geri left the show.

I don't believe that. At all.

If someone is bitter about a job where they were fired, they likely have reasons to be bitter.


Not if they're the reason they were fired. I'm not just talking about acting jobs, I'm referring to every type of job. If a person is creating problems at work, they should be terminated. They have no reason to be bitter because they caused the termination.



There are enough grains of salt to see the pattern: an actress comes on the show, she's promised so much by the producers, but then the producers decide it isn't working out, the actress notices she has fewer lines, she talks to the producers and they make lame excuses, she feels rejected by some of the other cast members, and then she finds out she won't be on the next season, then the producers say she can come back as a guest star, but it's really a two-minute cameo, and it's only an offer for a single episode, which feels insulting; the actress notices they didn't even bother to get the character's last name right, and the number of lines has been pared down. She says she'd like to say farewell, but is told, "That's not how this works." This was a pattern that repeated over and over, with slight variations, for many years on The Facts of Life.


What are producers supposed to do when a character isn't working out? Are they supposed to keep them even though it's causing some fans to tune out of the show? I'm not just talking about The Facts of Life. This is Hollywood. When you become an actor, you are going to face a hard time trying to enter an established series as a character the show already has. You're wanting to blame the producers for treating performers who didn't click with fans badly when it's their job to keep the show entertaining for fans and make money. If you want to be mad for favorite characters getting injustice, you need to take it out on the fans who didn't want them to begin with. Just like when a show is canceled to low ratings, it's not the networks fault. It's the fans who stopped watching.


We don't have to believe every actor who was fired from any show to see that there was a pattern on The Facts of Life, and many actors who left noticed and have reported the pattern in their interviews: John Lawlor, Felice Schachter, Molly Ringwald, Pamela Adlon, Geri Jewell, Julie Piekarski, George Clooney, and even Charlotte Rae have all reported on parts of that pattern.


Again, it's the producers job to make sure the show is entertaining fans. If there's a character that isn't clicking, they have to find a way to remove the character. As for Charlotte Rae, I don't know where you've heard her say they tuned her out. She stated in many interviews that after the Paris movie, her health wasn't good. She was wanting off the show. She also stated her character wasn't needed as much since the girls were getting older and used that to take a break from the series before officially leaving. She was already on her way out after season 5 and she made that known. She's never said in the interviews I've seen of hers that the writers were forcing her out. Kim Fields even said Charlotte was so amazing sharing the spotlight with them even though it was originally her show. She did not mind the direction of the series in season 2.


I don't see what "being relevant in Hollywood" has to do with actors discussing their experiences on TFOL.


Well when you take parts of my response out of context, you leave out the point I'm making. Pamela has been in many interviews in the past because she's still an acting performer. She's never once talked about mistreatment on The Facts of Life no matter how many opportunities she had prior. Here's an interview from 2008 (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/arts/television/23rhod.html) where she's discussed previous work in the 80's and didn't say anything about mistreatment then.


For a few extra clicks? Pamela and the interviewer are lying so that a podcast will get a few more clicks? Is Molly also lying? And Felice and Julie? Come on. Not all of these actors are lying.


You are entitled to believe what you want and others are entitled to believe what they want. I'm sorry your favorites from season 1 were fired because fans didn't like them. That's not the producers fault, that's not the fault of the network, it's not the fault of the performers, it's the fault of the fans who wanted to see the core 4 instead. But I'm not talking about anyone specific about season 1 with my post. I'm talking about Pamela and why she's waited 30 years to talk about mistreatment even though she had opportunities prior to do so. If you want to talk about the season 1 girls being fired, you should create a thread for that.

I know Kim has stated she saw no need to add new characters when the producers had already jettisoned the Lost Girls, and it's kind of hard to argue with that: if the cast was "too big", and then half of the characters were axed, then it's silly to then turn around and say the cast is "too small" and more characters are needed.

I actually kind of see the producers' point on this. We've been with "our girls" several years know and have come to know and love them, so it might "freshen up" the show or reinvigorate it with some new energy to bring on some new characters (note I said "might", lol).

It's just too bad that Cindy, Sue Ann, Molly*, and Sue Ann didn't start helping out at Edna's Edibles!

*(Molly's budding film career notwithstanding)

She was already on her way out after season 5 and she made that known. She's never said in the interviews I've seen of hers that the writers were forcing her out.

Charlotte talks about this more in her book. I think she did reference how the scripts were diminishing her more and more and focusing on the girls' and how they were solving their problems themselves, but I'd have to look back for specifics.


You are entitled to believe what you want and others are entitled to believe what they want. I'm sorry your favorites from season 1 were fired because fans didn't like them. That's not the producers fault, that's not the fault of the network, it's not the fault of the performers, it's the fault of the fans who wanted to see the core 4 instead.

I still prefer "let go" because the employees (the girls) didn't do anything on their part to warrant losing their jobs. They were fulfilling their duties, and then were unceremoniously sent home, akin to being laid off.

I think in that case though it was the producers seeing who the biggest star was, and the two funniest youngsters, and definitely wanting to keep them. They could have kept Sue Ann as the fourth since she was the most-used character after Blair (or possibly Tootie), but shockingly they just dropped Sue Ann like a hot Kansas City, Kansas potato.

Not if they're the reason they were fired. I'm not just talking about acting jobs, I'm referring to every type of job. If a person is creating problems at work, they should be terminated. They have no reason to be bitter because they caused the termination.


What does "a person causing problems at work should be terminated" have to do with this thread?

This thread is about Pamela Adlon's experiences during her year on FOL. She wasn't terminated because she caused problems at work.


What are producers supposed to do when a character isn't working out?

Be honest. don't give actors the run-around.

You're wanting to blame the producers for treating performers who didn't click with fans badly

Yep. I want people to be decent to other people.


If there's a character that isn't clicking, they have to find a way to remove the character.

And they can do so in a kind way that doesn't make the actor feel rejected or intimidated by other actors, which allows them dignity, and allows them to say farewell. Many FOL actresses, including Pamela, didn't get those opportunities.

The things is that in the interviews, the media asks the Core Four what it was like being on the show, and the actors who didn't stay on the show aren't asked. There's a brilliant moment in the Paley interview (not the stripped-down version, but the four-hour version) where a fan in the audience asks if it was awkward for the Core Four to work with the Lost Girls after they were off the show. Lisa says no, because she had already been close to Julie Pie, and brilliantly, Nancy says "No, but maybe we're not the ones to be asked" (paraphrased). I loved Nancy for that, because it's a classy admission that not everyone had the same experience on the show: that she didn't feel awkward, but other people felt differently, and everyone's entitled to tell their own stories.


As for Charlotte Rae, I don't know where you've heard her say they tuned her out. She stated in many interviews that after the Paris movie, her health wasn't good. She was wanting off the show.

Where does she say she was wanting off the show after the Paris movie?

Pamela has been in many interviews in the past because she's still an acting performer. She's never once talked about mistreatment on The Facts of Life no matter how many opportunities she had prior. Here's an interview from 2008 (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/23/arts/television/23rhod.html) where she's discussed previous work in the 80's and didn't say anything about mistreatment then.

Not bringing something up in a single interview is not the same as "never once" talking about being mistreated. You've stated that repeatedly, now.


You are entitled to believe what you want and others are entitled to believe what they want. I'm sorry your favorites from season 1 were fired because fans didn't like them. That's not the producers fault, that's not the fault of the network, it's not the fault of the performers, it's the fault of the fans who wanted to see the core 4 instead. But I'm not talking about anyone specific about season 1 with my post. I'm talking about Pamela and why she's waited 30 years to talk about mistreatment even though she had opportunities prior to do so. If you want to talk about the season 1 girls being fired, you should create a thread for that.

In this thread, I'm stating that several of the things Pamela mentioned in her interview sound very familiar: they sound like the things other actresses who were on the show have also mentioned: the feeling of isolation, the feeling of having to count your lines, the feeling of being unwelcome.

You don't get to decide what I'm allowed to bring up in this thread.

Charlotte talks about this more in her book. I think she did reference how the scripts were diminishing her more and more and focusing on the girls' and how they were solving their problems themselves, but I'd have to look back for specifics.

I know she also mentioned that feeling in at least one of the documentaries.

As you mentioned, she didn't even have a bedroom during the Edibles years, which IMO is a measure of how the producers were so focused on the Core Four that even Charlotte began to fall by the wayside.


I think in that case though it was the producers seeing who the biggest star was, and the two funniest youngsters, and definitely wanting to keep them. They could have kept Sue Ann as the fourth since she was the most-used character after Blair (or possibly Tootie), but shockingly they just dropped Sue Ann like a hot Kansas City, Kansas potato.

:lol: "dropped Sue Ann like a hot Kansas City, Kansas potato" is an amusing turn of phrase.

The dropping of Sue Ann was definitely a shock in the sense that she had been heavily-used prior to her being let go. It definitely doesn't fit the pattern that we saw from John Lawlor, Molly, Julie Anne, Felice, Geri, Pamela Adlon, George Clooney, the guy that played Kevin, and Charlotte... which is: their lines were whittled down, their scenes became fewer and fewer, others started getting the lines they would have had, etc. With Julie Pie, she went from being featured to being fired.

:lol: "dropped Sue Ann like a hot Kansas City, Kansas potato" is an amusing turn of phrase.

I always support amusement! :)


The dropping of Sue Ann was definitely a shock in the sense that she had been heavily-used prior to her being let go.

Exactly. I mean, Sue Ann wasn't one of my favorites, but she was clearly one of the foremost main characters. So it had to be a shock to any viewer to see that she was just sent packing back to the farm before the show came back.

I always support amusement! :)

You not only support it, you provoke it! :lol:


Exactly. I mean, Sue Ann wasn't one of my favorites, but she was clearly one of the foremost main characters. So it had to be a shock to any viewer to see that she was just sent packing back to the farm before the show came back.

:lol: I guess the producers thought that since few had been watching during the first season, few would miss Sue Ann. But some of us (not the you-us, but the Lorimar-and-I-and-others-us) definitely did.

Now, I didn't miss Kelly, because I think the writers dropped the ball with the character. But I do think it's very sad that Pamela feels it wasn't handled well, and still blames Nancy and Lisa. Because even though Nancy may have protested adding a mini-me version of her character, it was the writers and producers who insisted on writing Kelly in such a crummy way, which ultimately led to the character being unliked by viewers.

:lol: I guess the producers thought that since few had been watching during the first season, few would miss Sue Ann. But some of us (not the you-us, but the Lorimar-and-I-and-others-us) definitely did.

Hey, I miss her! She's a charter Lost Girl! She definitely had her place in the pantheon of characters. I wouldn't write sonnets :typing: or propose fan fiction :read: for a character I didn't like. :)

And I wouldn't be elated over the actress behind her winking at my FOL acknowledgement! :lol: :D

I actually kind of see the producers' point on this. We've been with "our girls" several years know and have come to know and love them, so it might "freshen up" the show or reinvigorate it with some new energy to bring on some new characters (note I said "might", lol).

I don't disagree, and FOL writers were always playing with the formula.

In this particular case, I feel as though they brought in Jo as a type of Fonzie: they wanted to mix things up, get a character with a motorcycle to stir up trouble on the set. But they went too far when they tried to add "Chachi", too. :lol:


It's just too bad that Cindy, Sue Ann, Molly*, and Sue Ann didn't start helping out at Edna's Edibles!

*(Molly's budding film career notwithstanding)

That would have been amazing. I would have loved that. They didn't even have to help out: they could have just stopped by to pick up some of Mrs. Garrett's delicious quiche, or (in Molly's or Cindy's case) come by to study with Nat and/or Toot. After all, Natalie and Tootie were supposedly still at Eastland... It would have been good continuity.

Hey, I miss her! She's a charter Lost Girl! She definitely had her place in the pantheon of characters. I wouldn't write sonnets :typing: or propose fan fiction :read: for a character I didn't like. :)

Ah, the impreciseness of the English language is a problem, here: you said Sue Ann "wasn't one of your favorites", which I took to mean "wasn't a favorite", as in you wouldn't miss her. But of course, I actually know which Lost Girls were your favorites, so I understand now what you meant.

The sonnets were amazing, and I still think about them, BTW.


And I wouldn't be elated over the actress behind her winking at my FOL acknowledgement! :lol: :D

Yes, now we just need to get Molly and Julie Anne to wink at you! ;):lol:

Ah, the impreciseness of the English language is a problem, here: you said Sue Ann "wasn't one of your favorites", which I took to mean "wasn't a favorite", as in you wouldn't miss her. But of course, I actually know which Lost Girls were your favorites, so I understand now what you meant.

Yeah, I was just out the non-favoriteness (lol) there to stress the point that no matter who you were, it was a SHOCK that Sue Ann was gone. Quicker than a rabbit dashing across a meadow in Kansas City, Kansas!


The sonnets were amazing, and I still think about them, BTW.

Well thanks, my creative juices have to find outlets, and those are such fun to do!


Yes, now we just need to get Molly and Julie Anne to wink at you! ;):lol:

And Felice too! I'm trying! :lol:

Yeah, I was just out the non-favoriteness (lol) there to stress the point that no matter who you were, it was a SHOCK that Sue Ann was gone. Quicker than a rabbit dashing across a meadow in Kansas City, Kansas!

Quick as Sue Ann running an 880!:lol:


And Felice too! I'm trying! :lol:

If we ever get a Lost Girls luncheon going, maybe it will happen! :lol:

Quick as Sue Ann running an 880!:lol:

:lol:


If we ever get a Lost Girls luncheon going, maybe it will happen! :lol:

"WHEN!" :D

And they can do so in a kind way that doesn't make the actor feel rejected or intimidated by other actors, which allows them dignity, and allows them to say farewell. Many FOL actresses, including Pamela, didn't get those opportunities.

Where does she say she was wanting off the show after the Paris movie?



Not bringing something up in a single interview is not the same as "never once" talking about being mistreated. You've stated that repeatedly, now.



In this thread, I'm stating that several of the things Pamela mentioned in her interview sound very familiar: they sound like the things other actresses who were on the show have also mentioned: the feeling of isolation, the feeling of having to count your lines, the feeling of being unwelcome.

You don't get to decide what I'm allowed to bring up in this thread.


The producers are not responsible for how people feel about others. If someone feels intimidated by another person, that's their interpretation of them. Blaming others for how we feel about an individual is blame shifting for our own feelings.

I don't remember which special it was. There's been a few from The E! True Hollywood Story to the cast confessions. Charlotte mentioned in an interview she was having health problems after the Paris movie. If I remember correctly, it was with her pacemaker. She stated she was getting tired of being on The Facts of Life and wanted off. She said they were offering her a lot of money to continue, but she felt the character wasn't needed anymore and wanted off the series. She never said anything to indicate she was forced off the show. She's always stated it was her decision to leave because she had done everything she could with Mrs. Garrett and felt the time was right to leave.

Retro, I understand you are still bothered by the 1st season girls getting fired. At least it appears that way with your responses. So far in this thread, you're coming off like you're criticizing us if we don't agree with your opinion. It's like you want us to feel the same way you do. With Impressions, when they mention the same thing I do about the memory, you go "It's been 35 years, what do you expect?" That comes off cocky. It's like we should believe this person regardless of how inaccurate their story sounds. I think the main one with mine you hyped on was throwing in there are the 1st season girls lying when I mentioned Pamela is possibly lying. It was like you were saying I'm claiming they are lying since I don't believe Pamela. The 1st season girls situation is totally different than Pamela's situation. Now, I respect your opinion about the 1st season cast and will not criticize you for how you feel. Please respect the same. You and I do not feel the same way about Pamela. We will have to agree to disagree on this.

If I remember correctly, it was with her pacemaker. She stated she was getting tired of being on The Facts of Life and wanted off. She said they were offering her a lot of money to continue, but she felt the character wasn't needed anymore and wanted off the series. She never said anything to indicate she was forced off the show. She's always stated it was her decision to leave because she had done everything she could with Mrs. Garrett and felt the time was right to leave.

In her book she does talk about her pacemaker during the cafeteria era, so that's most likely in season 4, after the Paris movie. As far as offering her a lot of money to stay on the show, I think that happened after season 6, when she announced she was leaving. I think that, but I would need to look back and check.


Retro, I understand you are still bothered by the 1st season girls getting fired.

Or "let go," as some of us prefer. ;) I still like to think of it as the equivalent of a layoff, therefore being "let go".

Going back to whether any of the actresses are lying, I don’t think anyone comes off as exaggerating or even bitter in their interviews. Maybe you could say Molly Ringwald had feelings of bitterness, but it seems less so now. Judging by the couch interview, she looks back with wariness.

Pamela Adlon, at least, has a sense of humor talking about the experience. When she mentioned it in the Oral History, she does state “with all due to respect” before speculating about Nancy McKeon’s feelings toward Kelly /Pamela.

I’d say Geri Jewel comes off as rightfully mystified about having her role minimized; and the other girls let go after season one seem at peace, and apparently did the guest roles with willingness.

Going back to Kelly, Pamela Adlon originally auditioned for “Jo’s Cousin”, a spin off attempt that flopped. My understanding is that Kelly was supposed to be Teri, but the writers had to retool the character. I don’t have much to say, I just think it’s interesting.

The producers are not responsible for how people feel about others.

The producers are absolutely responsible for what they promised others, and the feel of the set. Pamela has said she felt unwelcome, and I believe her: her lines were reduced, she felt minimized, and she's telling how she felt, through her experiences.


I don't remember which special it was. There's been a few from The E! True Hollywood Story to the cast confessions. Charlotte mentioned in an interview she was having health problems after the Paris movie. If I remember correctly, it was with her pacemaker. She stated she was getting tired of being on The Facts of Life and wanted off. She said they were offering her a lot of money to continue, but she felt the character wasn't needed anymore and wanted off the series.

I have both the E! True Hollywood Story and Cast Confessions. Charlotte says nothing about her health in the E! True Hollywood Story or Cast Confessions.

Mindy has stated, "One of the reasons [Charlotte] left is that the shows really started to focus on the girls, the pull started to be different, and for her, she sort of felt like, 'I'm done.'" (Source: Cast Confessions). Charlotte has said similar: the show was no longer about Mrs. Garrett. She didn't even have a bedroom. That was how much the producers had forgotten about a character who was once the center of the show.


Retro, I understand you are still bothered by the 1st season girls getting fired. At least it appears that way with your responses. So far in this thread, you're coming off like you're criticizing us if we don't agree with your opinion. It's like you want us to feel the same way you do. With Impressions, when they mention the same thing I do about the memory, you go "It's been 35 years, what do you expect?" That comes off cocky. It's like we should believe this person regardless of how inaccurate their story sounds. I think the main one with mine you hyped on was throwing in there are the 1st season girls lying when I mentioned Pamela is possibly lying. It was like you were saying I'm claiming they are lying since I don't believe Pamela. The 1st season girls situation is totally different than Pamela's situation. Now, I respect your opinion about the 1st season cast and will not criticize you for how you feel. Please respect the same. You and I do not feel the same way about Pamela. We will have to agree to disagree on this.

No. I refuse to agree to disagree. :lol:

Christopher, the only thing I'm bothered by in this thread is this reaction that "Pamela must be lying", with IMO silly, concocted reasons why she would be lying: to get a few clicks on a podcast. I instead appreciate her honesty and willingness to call a spade a spade: she didn't have a great time on the set, she's stated why, and the reaction to that, to say that she is somehow lying, from otherwise sensible people has greatly saddened me.

The attempt to paint Pamela as a liar feels like character assassination. It feels unnecessary: you can enjoy the show (and it is a most enjoyable show) without any need to say someone is "lying". Clearly, it ended up being a not very good experience for her, and other actors on the set have definitely said there were things that bothered them, too: the producers not being straight with them, getting smaller and smaller parts, and ultimately feeling unwelcome. There's no way they're all lying about that.

The fact is that the actors and actresses who have said the producers didn't always treat them well, that they promised things they didn't deliver, that they didn't even let them say goodbye, that they were made to feel unwelcome, appeared in Seasons 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, so this wasn't an isolated thing. It's a thing the producers did anytime they felt a character wasn't "working out", even if there could have been easier remedies.


You brought up Charmed, and the Milano-Doherty dispute, which, IMO, ended up ruining the show because the program got silly once Shannen Doherty left. Firing Shannen, in retrospect, was a mistake by the production team (though at the time, it might have made sense, given Shannen's history on other shows). On FOL, the mistake by the producers was in making actors feel unwelcome, like they didn't matter, continually getting rid of actors and replacing them with more actors who never worked out.

Going back to whether any of the actresses are lying, I don’t think anyone comes off as exaggerating or even bitter in their interviews. Maybe you could say Molly Ringwald had feelings of bitterness, but it seems less so now. Judging by the couch interview, she looks back with wariness.

Pamela Adlon, at least, has a sense of humor talking about the experience. When she mentioned it in the Oral History, she does state “with all due to respect” before speculating about Nancy McKeon’s feelings toward Kelly /Pamela.

You make a good point: I appreciate Pamela's humor and the "all due respect" attitude. She's telling things how she saw them.


I’d say Geri Jewel comes off as rightfully mystified about having her role minimized; and the other girls let go after season one seem at peace, and apparently did the guest roles with willingness.

Julie Pie jumped right back up, which is very admirable. Julie Anne and Felice have both had positive things to say about their experiences, but Felice has also said she felt the producers broke their promises. Molly and George go a step further, and didn't do interviews for many years, except to say "they fired me/they let me go/it was the worst job ever"-type comments. I'm very glad Molly is coming around, and is finally doing interviews again.

I feel quite bad for Geri because I know she wanted a more regular role: to stand up on her own and to not have to accept a disability check... and instead her role was reduced, she couldn't pay her bills anymore, and she felt totally betrayed. I don't believe that Charlotte truly rejected her, but I think the producers' rejection of Geri made Geri feel that way. And I think the girls, at that time, thought Charlotte had more power on the set than she actually did.


Going back to Kelly, Pamela Adlon originally auditioned for “Jo’s Cousin”, a spin off attempt that flopped. My understanding is that Kelly was supposed to be Teri, but the writers had to retool the character. I don’t have much to say, I just think it’s interesting.

Huh. I hadn't heard this before. That would make sense, given Pamela's comments. I will look out for more of this type of info.

BTW, I don't know if you've been welcomed to the board, yet, so:

Welcome, Sitcommania! :) We are glad you are here!

Molly and George go a step further, and didn't do interviews for many years, except to say "they fired me/they let me go/it was the worst job ever"-type comments. I'm very glad Molly is coming around, and is finally doing interviews again.

Don't forget George's recent surprise appearance---he and Molly both wished Charlotte a very happy 90th birthday via video for her Hallmark special. :)


And I think the girls, at that time, thought Charlotte had more power on the set than she actually did.

Yup, the girls thought that the entire time! Charlotte talks about this in her book, with Nancy having brought it up after the "fact". ;)

Don't forget George's recent surprise appearance---he and Molly both wished Charlotte a very happy 90th birthday via video for her Hallmark special. :)

Yep, George is coming around, now, too. :)


Yup, the girls thought that the entire time! Charlotte talks about this in her book, with Nancy having brought it up after the "fact". ;)

Oh, right, good point!

I actually kind of see the producers' point on this. We've been with "our girls" several years know and have come to know and love them, so it might "freshen up" the show or reinvigorate it with some new energy to bring on some new characters (note I said "might", lol).

It's just too bad that Cindy, Sue Ann, Molly*, and Sue Ann didn't start helping out at Edna's Edibles!

*(Molly's budding film career notwithstanding)

Did you just Nancy Nancy by putting Sue Ann twice?

Did you just Nancy Nancy by putting Sue Ann twice?
Nancied again! :lol:

...Say, did you just Nancy Cindy and Molly by putting Sue Ann's name once and Nancy's name twice?

Nancied again! :lol:

...Say, did you just Nancy Cindy and Molly by putting Sue Ann's name once and Nancy's name twice?
:brent But I wasn't trying to mention everyone

:brent But I wasn't trying to mention everyone
Nah, I know. It was just a silly joke. :lol:

I have both the E! True Hollywood Story and Cast Confessions. Charlotte says nothing about her health in the E! True Hollywood Story or Cast Confessions.

Mindy has stated, "One of the reasons [Charlotte] left is that the shows really started to focus on the girls, the pull started to be different, and for her, she sort of felt like, 'I'm done.'" (Source: Cast Confessions). Charlotte has said similar: the show was no longer about Mrs. Garrett. She didn't even have a bedroom. That was how much the producers had forgotten about a character who was once the center of the show.


This is so gonna bug the crap out of me. Are you sure it's not the E! True Hollywood story? I remember Charlotte saying in the video she had just done the Paris movie and her health wasn't that good. I did a search on this board about her pacemaker. Surprisingly it's `80sSitcoms who states what I'm saying in this post. (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?p=4979879&highlight=pacemaker#post4979879) Although I know it was a video interview I saw her mention this and not a written interview.



No. I refuse to agree to disagree. :lol:

Christopher, the only thing I'm bothered by in this thread is this reaction that "Pamela must be lying", with IMO silly, concocted reasons why she would be lying: to get a few clicks on a podcast. I instead appreciate her honesty and willingness to call a spade a spade: she didn't have a great time on the set, she's stated why, and the reaction to that, to say that she is somehow lying, from otherwise sensible people has greatly saddened me.

The attempt to paint Pamela as a liar feels like character assassination. It feels unnecessary: you can enjoy the show (and it is a most enjoyable show) without any need to say someone is "lying". Clearly, it ended up being a not very good experience for her, and other actors on the set have definitely said there were things that bothered them, too: the producers not being straight with them, getting smaller and smaller parts, and ultimately feeling unwelcome. There's no way they're all lying about that.

The fact is that the actors and actresses who have said the producers didn't always treat them well, that they promised things they didn't deliver, that they didn't even let them say goodbye, that they were made to feel unwelcome, appeared in Seasons 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, so this wasn't an isolated thing. It's a thing the producers did anytime they felt a character wasn't "working out", even if there could have been easier remedies.


You brought up Charmed, and the Milano-Doherty dispute, which, IMO, ended up ruining the show because the program got silly once Shannen Doherty left. Firing Shannen, in retrospect, was a mistake by the production team (though at the time, it might have made sense, given Shannen's history on other shows). On FOL, the mistake by the producers was in making actors feel unwelcome, like they didn't matter, continually getting rid of actors and replacing them with more actors who never worked out.


I look at The Facts of Life like Friends. In season 3 of The Facts of Life, it was NBC's number 1 comedy. Millions of people were tuning in to see Mrs. Garrett and the girls. It's just like Friends. You want the main cast, not new faces. You add in all these characters who aren't part of the main and it creates havoc with fans. There's tons of posts from fans complaining about the useless characters this show has had on. Whether or not Pamela's experience is bad, isn't the point for me. The point I feel is Pamela knew she was coming onto an established show. It's hard to be part of a cast that millions were comfortable with as just the 5. Pamela knew that and should have been aware it wasn't going to go anywhere. In show business, nothing is ever concrete. Things change at the drop of a hat. Look at season 1 of the show. They had actual original characters with Sue Ann and Cindy, yet that wasn't enough for fans. Pamela knew the show already does cast cuts and should have expected a similar route when her character wasn't catching on with fans.

I don't know why the producers felt they needed new characters because the 5 they had were what millions of people loved seeing. I will agree that was a mistake on their part. I don't see line cutting though as a mistreatment to the performers they're getting rid of. My definition of mistreatment is a lot different. I think mistreatment should be categorized as hostel tone, violent outbursts, yelling, snide comments / remarks, etc. Cutting lines and letting you go is just a way of firing you and that's always a case in show business. I think that's another reason you and I are differing on this because we have different views of what mistreatment is.

My only response I can think of for why the producers did what they did was because of the stress they had with a high rated series for the network. They didn't want to blow it and took chances on ideas that weren't worth trying.

Nah, I know. It was just a silly joke. :lol:

Lol yes I know

Did you just Nancy Nancy by putting Sue Ann twice?

Ahhhhhh,hahahahaha!!! :rofl:

Yes Lorsie, I did, and totally by mistake!

Ya see, Retro?? You can "Nancy Nancy" even when you're not trying to!! :lol:

I did a search on this board about her pacemaker. Surprisingly it's `80sSitcoms who states what I'm saying in this post. (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?p=4979879&highlight=pacemaker#post4979879)

Hey now, how did I get in the middle of this??

I kid, I kid. :lol:


I look at The Facts of Life like Friends. In season 3 of The Facts of Life, it was NBC's number 1 comedy.

It was?? :eek: But it was never even a Top 20 show! Yet it was their #1 comedy?? Holy cow...:candle: :cow: :candle:...also, I'm surprised it rose higher than its parent show DS.


They had actual original characters with Sue Ann and Cindy, yet that wasn't enough for fans.

Would've been fine with me to have all the girls, but oh, if only the scripts had been better balanced.

This is so gonna bug the crap out of me. Are you sure it's not the E! True Hollywood story? I remember Charlotte saying in the video she had just done the Paris movie and her health wasn't that good. I did a search on this board about her pacemaker. Surprisingly it's `80sSitcoms who states what I'm saying in this post. (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?p=4979879&highlight=pacemaker#post4979879) Although I know it was a video interview I saw her mention this and not a written interview.

I checked the transcript and didn't find it. I don't doubt that you saw it, or a similar statement, somewhere. There were so many documentaries that it's easy to confuse them. I know I, at least, have.


I look at The Facts of Life like Friends. In season 3 of The Facts of Life, it was NBC's number 1 comedy. Millions of people were tuning in to see Mrs. Garrett and the girls. It's just like Friends. You want the main cast, not new faces. You add in all these characters who aren't part of the main and it creates havoc with fans. There's tons of posts from fans complaining about the useless characters this show has had on. Whether or not Pamela's experience is bad, isn't the point for me. The point I feel is Pamela knew she was coming onto an established show. It's hard to be part of a cast that millions were comfortable with as just the 5. Pamela knew that and should have been aware it wasn't going to go anywhere. In show business, nothing is ever concrete. Things change at the drop of a hat. Look at season 1 of the show. They had actual original characters with Sue Ann and Cindy, yet that wasn't enough for fans. Pamela knew the show already does cast cuts and should have expected a similar route when her character wasn't catching on with fans.

I don't know why the producers felt they needed new characters because the 5 they had were what millions of people loved seeing. I will agree that was a mistake on their part. I don't see line cutting though as a mistreatment to the performers they're getting rid of. My definition of mistreatment is a lot different. I think mistreatment should be categorized as hostel tone, violent outbursts, yelling, snide comments / remarks, etc. Cutting lines and letting you go is just a way of firing you and that's always a case in show business. I think that's another reason you and I are differing on this because we have different views of what mistreatment is.

My only response I can think of for why the producers did what they did was because of the stress they had with a high rated series for the network. They didn't want to blow it and took chances on ideas that weren't worth trying.

You raise some excellent points, and I, as always, appreciate your participation in this thread and others. Because even when we disagree, it is just so fun to discuss this show, even 40 years later.

While I disagree with you that whittling down parts (and the accompanying stonewalling) was okay (I don't think it was), you raise the good point that the producers were dealing with a lot of stress and were trying to keep the series on top. Hindsight is 20/20, so looking back on it, it's clear many things could have been handled differently, but they were doing the best job they could at the time. And what the producers built, with help, was a series that ran throughout the 1980s, through many iterations and cast changes, and there is a lot to be said for that.

It was?? :eek: But it was never even a Top 20 show! Yet it was their #1 comedy?? Holy cow...:candle: :cow: :candle:...also, I'm surprised it rose higher than its parent show DS.

Christopher is right: in S3, FOL was #24. DS wasn't in the Top 30. The Top 20 were all ABC and CBS shows.

It is a measure of how poorly NBC was doing in that era that, two seasons earlier, they kept a show in the low 70s: they had nothing else to salvage: they cancelled six of their Friday night shows and kept FOL because ratings had improved during the summer.

I recall that Cheers, too, was very poorly watched: one documentary stated that Cheers was in something like 86th place... out of 86 shows! :lol:

By 1985, NBC had lifted itself out of the doldrums with incredible comedies: The Cosby Show (#1), Family Ties (#2), Cheers (#5), The Golden Girls (#7), Night Court (#11), 227 (#20), Valerie (#24), The Facts of Life (#27), and quite a few dramas. But their comedies had turned into ratings gold.


Would've been fine with me to have all the girls, but oh, if only the scripts had been better balanced.

Definitely. We needed to meet Cindy's family, see Nancy perform in a school play, see Sue Ann's dog Tiger, and learn how Molly's opinions on feminism had formed.

Thanks, Retro!

even when we disagree, it is just so fun to discuss this show, even 40 years later.

And with that, I disagree. :lol: I dislike disagreeing. This is why I'm so thankful the Internet wasn't around when I was growing up watching my TV shows I loved. I could live in these shows and absolutely love them, and no one was around to burst any bubbles or argue about things. I just got to live day and night with TV. :)

Yeah I knew NBC was desperately struggling, hence FOL in the first place, but I never realized a #24 show was their "#1 comedy"! lol


I recall that Cheers, too, was very poorly watched: one documentary stated that Cheers was in something like 86th place... out of 86 shows! :lol:

I believe it was 86th out of 87? And then season 2 took off like a rocket, and the rest is "Must See TV" history.

Ah, "Cheers"...I'm so glad to have the better part of the Lilith seasons on DVD. :)

Yeah I knew NBC was desperately struggling, hence FOL in the first place, but I never realized a #24 show was their "#1 comedy"! lol

#24, baby! We're rising to the top! :lol:


I believe it was 86th out of 87? And then season 2 took off like a rocket, and the rest is "Must See TV" history.

Ah, "Cheers"...I'm so glad to have the better part of the Lilith seasons on DVD. :)

I haven't seen the show in a loooong time... I need to remedy that this summer...

You raise some excellent points, and I, as always, appreciate your participation in this thread and others. Because even when we disagree, it is just so fun to discuss this show, even 40 years later.

While I disagree with you that whittling down parts (and the accompanying stonewalling) was okay (I don't think it was), you raise the good point that the producers were dealing with a lot of stress and were trying to keep the series on top. Hindsight is 20/20, so looking back on it, it's clear many things could have been handled differently, but they were doing the best job they could at the time. And what the producers built, with help, was a series that ran throughout the 1980s, through many iterations and cast changes, and there is a lot to be said for that.


I appreciate your participation in threads as well. I love talking to fans about this show because it's such a classic and an icon for its time. To my knowledge, there had never been a female cast show before The Facts of Life. They always had a balance with men and females. The Facts of Life set a trend showing networks women, regardless of age, can carry a show without a man's help and be successful at it. After this show, we started getting other female cast shows like The Golden Girls, Designing Women, and Sex & The City. I feel The Facts of Life really helped create the pave way for those type of shows to exist.

Yeah when I think of mistreatment, I think of actors like Nicolette Sheridan. Nicolette claims the creator of Desperate Housewives hit her and made it a hostel environment. I remember in the outtakes the following season after Nicolette's termination, Teri Hatcher made fun of her saying, "It's a hostel work environment" when her character threw another character in the bath tub. When an actor talks about stuff like that, I think it's mistreatment.

With The Facts of Life, I think the only mistreatment the producers did was stress to them about losing weight. I mean that's hurtful. They wanted to do a bathing suit episode in season 6 with the episode 'Gone With The Wind'. I think it was either a producer or Kim who said they were too heavy for them to follow through with that. ******** I say. These girls were healthy looking. You don't need to be a size negative 0 to look attractive IMO. I think they were still hounding them about their weight. Notice how skinny Lisa got from season 6 to season 8? She was back to how she looked in season 1.

And with all the cast changes and reinventions they did with the show, it still managed to do well. I saw on Wiki (it may not be true) that The Facts of Life Down Under actually had higher ratings than The Facts of Life Goes To Paris. That's extremely well for any show to have better ratings in a later season than an earlier season.

To my knowledge, there had never been a female cast show before The Facts of Life. They always had a balance with men and females. The Facts of Life set a trend showing networks women, regardless of age, can carry a show without a man's help and be successful at it.

Ironically, Molly Parker would totally support your sentiment. ;)


I saw on Wiki (it may not be true) that The Facts of Life Down Under actually had higher ratings than The Facts of Life Goes To Paris. That's extremely well for any show to have better ratings in a later season than an earlier season.

Hmm, well, if it is true, the show was airing on a weeknight for "Paris", whereas at it was a Saturday night staple in the late '80s, when Saturday night was "TV night" for many. Maybe that helped? Plus maybe there was lots of promotion?

I appreciate your participation in threads as well. I love talking to fans about this show because it's such a classic and an icon for its time.

Definitely!

To my knowledge, there had never been a female cast show before The Facts of Life. They always had a balance with men and females. The Facts of Life set a trend showing networks women, regardless of age, can carry a show without a man's help and be successful at it. After this show, we started getting other female cast shows like The Golden Girls, Designing Women, and Sex & The City. I feel The Facts of Life really helped create the pave way for those type of shows to exist.

As far as I know, FOL was the first all-female TV cast in the modern era, though there were years when men also appeared in the opening credits: John Lawlor, Hugh Gillan, and George Clooney.

Going further back in time, the only shows I know with all-female casts were the DuMont Network's low-budget TV shows where a single female hosted the show: The Hazel Scott Show (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hazel_Scott_Show), The Power of Women (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Women), or possibly the drama The Gallery of Madame Liu-Tsong (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gallery_of_Madame_Liu-Tsong) (but all episodes have been lost).


And with all the cast changes and reinventions they did with the show, it still managed to do well. I saw on Wiki (it may not be true) that The Facts of Life Down Under actually had higher ratings than The Facts of Life Goes To Paris. That's extremely well for any show to have better ratings in a later season than an earlier season.

I'm not really a fan of most of the episodes in the later years, but the show remained resilient in the ratings, that's for sure!

though there were years when men also appeared in the opening credits: John Lawlor, Hugh Gillan, and George Clooney.
Did we ever get proof that HG was in the opening credits for the episodes he was in? Or is it all hearsay? Or does someone definitely remember from the original airings?

Did we ever get proof that HG was in the opening credits for the episodes he was in? Or is it all hearsay? Or does someone definitely remember from the original airings?

I definitely have seen it. I have no screenshots to prove it, though.

I definitely have seen it. I have no screenshots to prove it, though.
Nice. I thought I may have remembered it from my childhood viewings when it was in syndication (too young to have seen his episodes in their original primetime run), but I can't be 100% sure of that memory.

What who is Hugh? What season was he in?

I definitely have seen it. I have no screenshots to prove it, though.


I've never seen opening credits with Hugh in it. The episodes on both DVD sets from Sony and Shout have him listed in the closing credits. Another example we don't have this show completely uncut on DVD.


What who is Hugh? What season was he in?


The cook from season 2. It was later revealed in 'A Woman's Place' that he and Mrs. Garrett had a fling together. He was sexist in The New Girl part 2 when he says a woman's place is in the kitchen.

I've never seen opening credits with Hugh in it. The episodes on both DVD sets from Sony and Shout have him listed in the closing credits. Another example we don't have this show completely uncut on DVD.





The cook from season 2. It was later revealed in 'A Woman's Place' that he and Mrs. Garrett had a fling together. He was sexist in The New Girl part 2 when he says a woman's place is in the kitchen.

Ohhh! That’s weird that they’d have him in the intro. Especially after downsizing the cast.

As far as I know, FOL was the first all-female TV cast in the modern era, though there were years when men also appeared in the opening credits: John Lawlor, Hugh Gillan, and George Clooney.

I'm not really a fan of most of the episodes in the later years, but the show remained resilient in the ratings, that's for sure!

Forgot to comment on these :lol:

John was definitely a main star in season 1, but I don't think George was as he only appeared in the opening credits for the episodes he was in. If you look at Fuller House on Netflix, the adults of Full House are only in the credits of the episodes they guest star in. I look at George and McKenzie that way during season 7, as just guest stars in the episodes they're in. Even though McKenzie was bumped to a regular star of the show in season 8, his parts were rarely ever over powering and at sometimes only had like a minute in an episode. In season 9, he was gone quite a bit.

I was surprise NBC wanted a season 10 because I would have thought season 9 killed every interest of the fans watching. The only real good meaningful episode that season was "Rumor Has It". "The First Time" is overrated and doesn't have meaning that a lot of people can relate to. "Rumor Has It" is something I think majority of us go through whether it's at school, a work environment, or a social setting. That's probably the only episode I will defend from season 9 as one like the earlier years. I'm glad they did it when the girls were adults because rumors aren't just something kids go through. It's a social problem that even adults face at times.

I read some interviews about the show and one of them (I don't remember) said that Jo saved the show. Plus, some comments on others sites and Youtube videos said the same thing. I want to talk with you about Jo saved the show (I also read an answer at the start of this thread)
I don't think Jo saved the show. The problems of the 1979-1980 season were:
1. The timeslot: A new series needs a good timeslot so the second season begins after its parent series, Diff'rent Strokes, and, once Fol became a hit it could survive even without the support of the original series
2. Boarding school stories: In the first season, only I.Q and The Facts of Love were centered on boarding school stories. In the following seasons, in the cafeteria, we saw more girls, more teachers, more school stories (for example Gossip, Breaking Point, Sex Symbol, Pretty Babies, Fear Strikes Back, Front Page, Give and Take, Sweet Sorrow, Dear Me and others). And I find more believable four girls who work in the cafeteria with their dietician than seven girls always in their dorm with their housemother, headmaster and ONE teacher
3. Mrs. Garrett: She was a popular character on DS, she was the star of the spin-off (Charlotte Rae was the only actress to be able to carry her own show) but, with all those girls, she didn't have the right space. With her new job as dietitian she earned a better career, she was a part of Eastland and she wasn't just a housekeeper/housemother or a supervisor (but she was still a surrogate mother, a friend and a confidant for the girls). I also like her job as business woman
4. Too many characters: Beyond Mrs. Garrett, all of the girls didn't have the right space, some had more stories (Blair, Sue Ann, Cindy, Tootie), others had one or two episodes or were just there (Nancy, Natalie, Molly).

In conclusion, Jo was a great addition, she was funny but didn't save the series. Give the show a better timeslot, more substance to the characters and more believable stories and you have a hit like FOL.

I know I'm late to the game but...

Wow, so much to respond to! :)

*cracks knuckles*



Well, she was on the show about 35 years ago... what do you expect?

Memories fade, and she clearly wasn't accessing IMDb in order to tell her story; just as we wouldn't expect Charlotte to get every detail right (she called Julie Piekarski Julie McWhirter), we can't expect perfect recall.

Well for one thing, I don't expect her to recall every detail or to have IMDB memorized, but getting something as the chronologically of characters just made me distrust her, especially since she said she was such a fan of the show. If she's careless about those details, it's likely she's careless about other details in her story. If you catch my drift. I do understand that people have memory lapses, but that doesn't give me good reason to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Christopher, the only thing I'm bothered by in this thread is this reaction that "Pamela must be lying", with IMO silly, concocted reasons why she would be lying: to get a few clicks on a podcast. I instead appreciate her honesty and willingness to call a spade a spade: she didn't have a great time on the set, she's stated why, and the reaction to that, to say that she is somehow lying, from otherwise sensible people has greatly saddened me.

I consider myself to be a very sensible person and a good judge of character, and her interview was sketchy all over the place. I have not seen or heard evidence presented that what she saying is true, or at least another witness that said it is, and that's the huge problem with this interview. We don't have the other side of the story. What did Lisa Whelchel and Nancy McKeon think about Pamela Aldon? I don't think we have sound bites. It's possible that Lisa Whelchel and Nancy McKeon could have a completely opposite experience, but since we only have one side of the story, I'm not completely convinced of the truthfulness of her experience. So I'm going to chalk up this whole interview with a truck ton of salt.

I'm also not sure how "certain people" are not "sensible," simply because they don't believe that she's being completely honest about her story or they don't agree with your viewpoint that she is being honest. Yes, that does sound cocky. Wouldn't the sensible thing be to question fact from fiction? It seems like your mind is already made up and you're not willing to open it up, so it doesn't make sense to convince you otherwise at this point, but that's just my view of this entire argument.

Clearly, it ended up being a not very good experience for her, and other actors on the set have definitely said there were things that bothered them, too: the producers not being straight with them, getting smaller and smaller parts, and ultimately feeling unwelcome. There's no way they're all lying about that.

This was brought up before, but I'm going to add on to it. I'm not sure how "other actors" (I assume you mean the "lost girls") fits into this argument. While they both shared negative experiences, being cut from the show, and insensitive producers, it doesn't make sense to lump their experiences together, because like Christopher has said before, we are not speaking about them, we're speaking specifically about Pam's experience. Sure, you're free bring them up all you want (and no, you don't need my or anyone's permission to bring them up either) but from my view, that argument is a deflection from the main issue at hand, to make Pam's experience sound more credible, whose story is rather weak to begin with.

I do agree that the producers are to blame completely for her experience.

2. Boarding school stories: In the first season, only I.Q and The Facts of Love were centered on boarding school stories. In the following seasons, in the cafeteria, we saw more girls, more teachers, more school stories (for example Gossip, Breaking Point, Sex Symbol, Pretty Babies, Fear Strikes Back, Front Page, Give and Take, Sweet Sorrow, Dear Me and others). And I find more believable four girls who work in the cafeteria with their dietician than seven girls always in their dorm with their housemother, headmaster and ONE teacher.

I'm not sure how you discount some episodes as not being "boarding school stories". They all take place at the boarding school. Unless you mean more the school part of it, but part of boarding school would be the social aspect too, outside of the classroom.

I'm not sure how you discount some episodes as not being "boarding school stories". They all take place at the boarding school. Unless you mean more the school part of it, but part of boarding school would be the social aspect too, outside of the classroom.

I mean the scholastic part. During the first season we never saw other students or teachers or scholastic stories (except I.Q.). The following seasons, the cafeteria period, were centered more on the scholastic part of Eastland, we saw more teachers (not only Miss Mahoney), scenes in classrooms, other girls, school life in general. I said that I find more believable four girls who work in the cafeteria with their dietician than seven girls always in their dorm with the housemother. If people watch seasons 2-4, they understand that the girls are in a boarding school, if they watch season 1, they understand that school life is less used

I like the first season but the story is less believable than seasons 2-4

I mean the scholastic part. During the first season we never saw other students or teachers or scholastic stories (except I.Q.). The following seasons, the cafeteria period, were centered more on the scholastic part of Eastland, we saw more teachers (not only Miss Mahoney), scenes in classrooms, other girls, school life in general. I said that I find more believable four girls who work in the cafeteria with their dietician than seven girls always in their dorm with the housemother. If people watch seasons 2-4, they understand that the girls are in a boarding school, if they watch season 1, they understand that school life is less used

I like the first season but the story is less believable than seasons 2-4

But in season 1 there are 3 episodes with classrooms, out of only 13 episodes. In seasons 2-4, there are only 2 episodes with classrooms, out of 64 episodes. :lol: