Granted its been a long time since I've seen this episode but it strikes me as odd as Tooty or one of the others says, "You remember Jo?". The way the episode was written you would think they barely knew Jo at all but we saw that was not the case during the time when the Lost Girls would appear occasionally before being phased out. Even the absent Molly who made that one season 2 appearance could be assumed to have interacted with her "off camera".

Also this really should have been written in Mrs. Garret's final season as it would have had more punch having her get to interact with the returning Lost Girls. As it was the whole episode felt more like a vechile for Jo.

Granted its been a long time since I've seen this episode but it strikes me as odd as Tooty or one of the others says, "You remember Jo?". The way the episode was written you would think they barely knew Jo at all but we saw that was not the case during the time when the Lost Girls would appear occasionally before being phased out. Even the absent Molly who made that one season 2 appearance could be assumed to have interacted with her "off camera".

I've always taken Tootie's line, "You remember Jo?" as pretty accurate: they clearly remembered Jo, but they were never very close. We saw them together in a handful of episodes, and Sue Ann and Cindy took one class with Jo, but they were never close companions to Jo the way Tootie, Blair, and Natalie were, because the Core Four were busy washing dishes and scrubbing floors during two years.

Molly and Cindy would likely have continued at Eastland with Natalie and Tootie, after Jo graduated, but that just means that Jo would only have known the Lost Girls for a few years, four years earlier. I feel like "You remember Jo?" is completely appropriate.

Now, Beverly Ann says "You didn't know them at all!" and Jo doesn't correct this, but I get the feeling that Beverly Ann is actually talking about herself.

There's one more line that I feel is somewhat weak. Nancy says something about Jo not being "the wildcat we've all heard about". But Nancy herself was there for Jo and Blair's big fight in "Gossip". I chalk this up to Nancy just not remembering an incident from six years earlier.


Also this really should have been written in Mrs. Garret's final season as it would have had more punch having her get to interact with the returning Lost Girls. As it was the whole episode felt more like a vechile for Jo.

I agree that if it had been a year earlier (or even five episodes earlier), we would have gotten a very nice Mrs. Garrett/Lost Girls reunion. We could have had flashbacks to Mrs. Garrett bringing a cupcake and milk to Cindy, in "Rough Housing". We could have flashed back to Sue Ann and Mrs. Garrett sharing a moment in front of the Mirror of Reflection in "Dieting". We could have seen the memory of Mrs. Garrett putting a flower in Nancy's hair, from "Dope". We could even have had a scene showing Mrs. Garrett comforting Molly, from "Molly's Holiday". We could have even had enough flashbacks for a two-parter.

Had that episode come before Mrs. Garrett's departure, just four or five episodes earlier, it would have resonated so much more. Still, I enjoy the episode, because at least it happened. Years too late, but still: it happened.

Also, I disagree that "The Little Chill" was a Jo vehicle; that was a Sue Ann-centered episode, for sure.

I've always taken Tootie's line, "You remember Jo?" as pretty accurate: they clearly remembered Jo, but they were never very close. We saw them together in a handful of episodes, and Sue Ann and Cindy took one class with Jo, but they were never close companions to Jo the way Tootie, Blair, and Natalie were, because the Core Four were busy washing dishes and scrubbing floors during two years.

Molly and Cindy would likely have continued at Eastland with Natalie and Tootie, after Jo graduated, but that just means that Jo would only have known the Lost Girls for a few years, four years earlier. I feel like "You remember Jo?" is completely appropriate.

Now, Beverly Ann says "You didn't know them at all!" and Jo doesn't correct this, but I get the feeling that Beverly Ann is actually talking about herself.

There's one more line that I feel is somewhat weak. Nancy says something about Jo not being "the wildcat we've all heard about". But Nancy herself was there for Jo and Blair's big fight in "Gossip". I chalk this up to Nancy just not remembering an incident from six years earlier.



I agree that if it had been a year earlier (or even five episodes earlier), we would have gotten a very nice Mrs. Garrett/Lost Girls reunion. We could have had flashbacks to Mrs. Garrett bringing a cupcake and milk to Cindy, in "Rough Housing". We could have flashed back to Sue Ann and Mrs. Garrett sharing a moment in front of the Mirror of Reflection in "Dieting". We could have seen the memory of Mrs. Garrett putting a flower in Nancy's hair, from "Dope". We could even have had a scene showing Mrs. Garrett comforting Molly, from "Molly's Holiday". We could have even had enough flashbacks for a two-parter.

Had that episode come before Mrs. Garrett's departure, just four or five episodes earlier, it would have resonated so much more. Still, I enjoy the episode, because at least it happened. Years too late, but still: it happened.

Also, I disagree that "The Little Chill" was a Jo vehicle; that was a Sue Ann-centered episode, for sure.

Since Cindy was 14 at the time when Julie Ann was 14, Cindy would have been on schedule to graduate in 1983. I graduated in 1983 and me and my classmates were born right around the same same time Julie Ann was born. Thus she would have graduated with with Jo and Blair.

I thought the Little Chill was too focused on the Jo felt left out plot. They should have spent more time on the Lost Girls, including more about Cindy. What caused the tomboy to suddenly be a supermodel? That story was not explained.

And even though Jo and Molly were in the same scenes with one another, they never said one word to one another. Not even acknowledging one another's existence. If Molly was suppose to be a reoccurring character, shouldn't they have a least had some dialogue between them. There just seemed to be lots of tension in that scene. Molly clearly was not happy. She went from being the smiling happy child in season one to looking miserable and unhappy for her "worst job ever".

Since Cindy was 14 at the time when Julie Ann was 14, Cindy would have been on schedule to graduate in 1983. I graduated in 1983 and me and my classmates were born right around the same same time Julie Ann was born. Thus she would have graduated with with Jo and Blair.

But Cindy was younger than Sue Ann, confirmed in "Running". There's no way Cindy was the same age as Blair. She's visibly younger.

But Cindy was younger than Sue Ann, confirmed in "Running". There's no way Cindy was the same age as Blair. She's visibly younger.

Some people appear older or younger than what they are. The ages of Cindy and Julie Ann matched. Both were 14 during the first season of FOL. In real life Lisa is two years older than Julie Ann. They just made Lisa 2 years older through the years. First she was born in 1965, then she was born in 1963.

I'm not surprise the lost girls reunion episode is Jo centered. More people started watching the show when Jo was added and probably didn't know who the lost girls were. The writers were probably thinking "crap, what have we done bringing these nobodies back?" Their solution was to make it a Jo episode. You have to love the irony that the episode the lost girls return in and should be about them is really about Jo the character who replaced them all. The writers of this episode are very clever pointing out the fact that the lost girls still need Jo to help them get people watching an episode they're in.

The “you remember Jo” line is an odd thing to say, since clearly Jo knew Sue Ann, Cindy, and Nancy. She went to school with them for at least two years. And Tootie knew that. But TV shows aren’t written for the hard core fans. FOL didn’t become popular until after the first season, so that line was written as a way to establish that Jo wasn’t tight with the first season girls, even if it sounded awkward.

I'm not surprise the lost girls reunion episode is Jo centered. More people started watching the show when Jo was added and probably didn't know who the lost girls were. The writers were probably thinking "crap, what have we done bringing these nobodies back?" Their solution was to make it a Jo episode. You have to love the irony that the episode the lost girls return in and should be about them is really about Jo the character who replaced them all. The writers of this episode are very clever pointing out the fact that the lost girls still need Jo to help them get people watching an episode they're in.

I lived and watched when Jo was introduced. We knew who the Lost Girls were. We were told they would be be back for some episodes. They didn't know having Jo would work either. And the repeats of the 1st season of the Facts of Life were doing better in the ratings.

I'm not surprise the lost girls reunion episode is Jo centered. More people started watching the show when Jo was added and probably didn't know who the lost girls were. The writers were probably thinking "crap, what have we done bringing these nobodies back?" Their solution was to make it a Jo episode. You have to love the irony that the episode the lost girls return in and should be about them is really about Jo the character who replaced them all. The writers of this episode are very clever pointing out the fact that the lost girls still need Jo to help them get people watching an episode they're in.

Nobodies? Nobodies! Sacrilige LOL

Respectfully disagree on Jo being needed to carry a Lost Girls story. The Lost Girls represent PURE Facts of Life...the show it was always meant to be. This should have totally been their episode. One has to wonder if they ate some humble pie and tried to get Molly Ringwald to return.

I lived and watched when Jo was introduced. We knew who the Lost Girls were. We were told they would be be back for some episodes. They didn't know having Jo would work either. And the repeats of the 1st season of the Facts of Life were doing better in the ratings.


More people started tuning into The Facts of Life when it was just Blair, Jo, Natalie, Tootie, and Mrs. Garrett. I understand the lost girls have their fans, but the ratings for season 1 including repeats are nowhere near what they were when finally retooling the show in season 2 for people to enjoy. Newer viewers that started for the main 4 and Mrs. Garrett probably didn't know who the lost girls were. We all know if we ask random people on the street who saw the series, they would recall any of the main 4 and Mrs. Garrett instead of the lost girls. The show was ranked in the 70's that first year and jumped all the way up to the 20's in the second season. That's a huge increase of viewers and that had nothing to do with the first season no matter how much fans of the lost girls want that to be true. The facts are there that the lost girls and the writing first season wasn't cutting it. I just can't believe until now how obvious the writers for The Little Chill really made it clear Jo was the saving grace in their minds since they had her steal the story from the lost girls that episode. I feel bad for the lost girls now that they had to come back for more humiliation. They should have rejected the appearance to save face.

More people started tuning into The Facts of Life when it was just Blair, Jo, Natalie, Tootie, and Mrs. Garrett. I understand the lost girls have their fans, but the ratings for season 1 including repeats are nowhere near what they were when finally retooling the show in season 2 for people to enjoy. Newer viewers that started for the main 4 and Mrs. Garrett probably didn't know who the lost girls were. We all know if we ask random people on the street who saw the series, they would recall any of the main 4 and Mrs. Garrett instead of the lost girls. The show was ranked in the 70's that first year and jumped all the way up to the 20's in the second season. That's a huge increase of viewers and that had nothing to do with the first season no matter how much fans of the lost girls want that to be true. The facts are there that the lost girls and the writing first season wasn't cutting it. I just can't believe until now how obvious the writers for The Little Chill really made it clear Jo was the saving grace in their minds since they had her steal the story from the lost girls that episode. I feel bad for the lost girls now that they had to come back for more humiliation. They should have rejected the appearance to save face.

People actually started turning in during the repeats of the 1st season. The ratings increased from the original showings. But by then the cast changes had already been made.

Nobodies? Nobodies! Sacrilige LOL

Respectfully disagree on Jo being needed to carry a Lost Girls story. The Lost Girls represent PURE Facts of Life...the show it was always meant to be. This should have totally been their episode. One has to wonder if they ate some humble pie and tried to get Molly Ringwald to return.

They reached out to Molly, but she refused. She still was at the height from her movie career and one year removed of her "Worse job ever" for her second season appearance" comment and talked of being humiliated. By that time she was making more money than all the other girls combined. She still is probably worth more than all the 7 other child actors combined from the Easton years combined.

People actually started turning in during the repeats of the 1st season. The ratings increased from the original showings. But by then the cast changes had already been made.

Yep. And here's the proof. Here are the Nielsen Ratings for the last week of July, 1980, as reported in the Reno Gazette-Journal on August 6, 1980:

1. "The Jeffersons," 21.6. CBS
2. "Trapper John, M.D.," 21.3, CBS
3. "Airport 77," Part II, 21.3, NBC
4. "Alice," 19.8, CBS
5. "Three's Company," 19.6, ABC
6. "MASH," 19.0, CBS
7. "Taxi," 18.7, ABC
8. "Fantasy Island," 18.3, ABC
9. "The Dukes of Hazzard," 18.2, CBS
10. "Dallas." 18.0, CBS
11. "Hart to Hart." 18.0, ABC
12. "60 Minutes," 17.8, CBS
13. "20-20," 16.8, ABC
14. "The Love Boat," 16.4, ABC
15. "WKRP in Cincinnati," 16.3, CBS
16. Flo," 15.6, CBS
17. "Laverne & Shirley" 15.4, ABC
18. "Facts of Life." 15.4, NBC
19. "Real People," 15.3, NBC
20. "House Calls," 15.3, CBS


The bottom five:
"CBS Reports" 8.3, CBS
"The Prince of Central Park," 7.8, CBS
"Brothers," 7.4. CBS
"Six O'Clock Follies," 7.0, NBC
"Good Time Harry," 6.9, NBC

The Facts of Life was pulling in very big numbers over the summer months, and was ranked #18 during that week. Those numbers were bigger, in fact, than the 1980-81 season, when The Facts of Life didn't rank in the Top 30, and much bigger, of course, than the ratings for The Facts of Life in the series' last two seasons, when the show didn't rank in the Top 30.

People will tell you that Jo "saved the show", but the ratings had already significantly improved well before Jo had even made it on the air: over 15 million people were tuning in, and the show had cracked the Top 20, becoming a top-rated series on NBC... actually, NBC's highest-ranked regular series.

They reached out to Molly, but she refused. She still was at the height from her movie career and one year removed of her "Worse job ever" for her second season appearance" comment and talked of being humiliated. By that time she was making more money than all the other girls combined. She still is probably worth more than all the 7 other child actors combined from the Easton years combined.

Can't say I blame her...they did her and the other Lost Girls dirty. And from what you say about the ratings going up for the repeats then its fairly clear they pulled the trigger too soon on the retooling.

What might have been :(

Yep. And here's the proof. Here are the Nielsen Ratings for the last week of July, 1980, as reported in the Reno Gazette-Journal on August 6, 1980:

1. "The Jeffersons," 21.6. CBS
2. "Trapper John, M.D.," 21.3, CBS
3. "Airport 77," Part II, 21.3, NBC
4. "Alice," 19.8, CBS
5. "Three's Company," 19.6, ABC
6. "MASH," 19.0, CBS
7. "Taxi," 18.7, ABC
8. "Fantasy Island," 18.3, ABC
9. "The Dukes of Hazzard," 18.2, CBS
10. "Dallas." 18.0, CBS
11. "Hart to Hart." 18.0, ABC
12. "60 Minutes," 17.8, CBS
13. "20-20," 16.8, ABC
14. "The Love Boat," 16.4, ABC
15. "WKRP in Cincinnati," 16.3, CBS
16. Flo," 15.6, CBS
17. "Laverne & Shirley" 15.4, ABC
18. "Facts of Life." 15.4, NBC
19. "Real People," 15.3, NBC
20. "House Calls," 15.3, CBS


The bottom five:
"CBS Reports" 8.3, CBS
"The Prince of Central Park," 7.8, CBS
"Brothers," 7.4. CBS
"Six O'Clock Follies," 7.0, NBC
"Good Time Harry," 6.9, NBC

The Facts of Life was pulling in very big numbers over the summer months, and was ranked #18 during that week. Those numbers were bigger, in fact, than the 1980-81 season, when The Facts of Life didn't rank in the Top 30, and much bigger, of course, than the ratings for The Facts of Life in the series' last two seasons, when the show didn't rank in the Top 30.

People will tell you that Jo "saved the show", but the ratings had already significantly improved well before Jo had even made it on the air: over 15 million people were tuning in, and the show had cracked the Top 20, becoming a top-rated series on NBC... actually, NBC's highest-ranked regular series.

Thanks. I tried finding a database of historical Neilsen TV ratings, but could not find it.

People will tell you that Jo "saved the show", but the ratings had already significantly improved well before Jo had even made it on the air: over 15 million people were tuning in, and the show had cracked the Top 20, becoming a top-rated series on NBC... actually, NBC's highest-ranked regular series.

Jo saving the show...I don't think I could even bring myself to say those words out loud. For this fan the show was never quite as good after she was added to the cast and the others reduced until they vanished one by one. I just didn't care for her abraisive character...as I said in another post they already had the perfect foil for Blair...Sue Anne.

Jo saving the show...I don't think I could even bring myself to say those words out loud. For this fan the show was never quite as good after she was added to the cast and the others reduced until they vanished one by one. I just didn't care for her abraisive character...as I said in another post they already had the perfect foil for Blair...Sue Anne.

Jo would have been a good addition even if the lost girls did stay, she brought the big city street girl from a mafia like family to the show. She could have played off Sue Ann's rural upbringing in addition be playing foil to Blair.

Thanks. I tried finding a database of historical Neilsen TV ratings, but could not find it.

No problem. :wave:

Nielsen doesn't want an open archive of ratings, since they would lose their paid subscribers, so the information is a bit hard to get ahold of. However, over the years, I have found plenty of newspaper clippings from that era which clearly state that ratings for FOL had significantly improved, after the show was moved out of the death slot NBC had scheduled it in. They even got to the point where the show was pulling in a large audience.

Ratings over the summer were very strong well before Jo arrived at Eastland, which didn't occur until November 1980. In fact, they were much bigger than the show's last couple of feeble years on the air, when no-one was tuning in anymore.

Jo saving the show...I don't think I could even bring myself to say those words out loud. For this fan the show was never quite as good after she was added to the cast and the others reduced until they vanished one by one. I just didn't care for her abraisive character...as I said in another post they already had the perfect foil for Blair...Sue Anne.

I agree that Sue Ann was a GREAT foil for Blair. I don't mind that they added Jo, but I don't like this NM fan fiction that has somehow evolved, stating that Nancy McKeon somehow saved the show. History tells us otherwise, and if we're observant, we can find the articles that prove it's fiction.

I also agree with you that the show lost something important when the Lost Girls faded away. We lost the stories their characters could tell, and we were left with a show where the writers kept jettisoning the setting and adding in random characters no-one liked, in hopes of keeping the show alive. But by the Seventh Season, those revamps and character additions were showing cracks in the show's façade, and by Season Eight, The Facts of Life dropped out of the Top 30 entirely.

Jo would have been a good addition even if the lost girls did stay, she brought the big city street girl from a mafia like family to the show. She could have played off Sue Ann's rural upbringing in addition be playing foil to Blair.

I actually would have loved to see that! Imagine something like this:


Blair: Jo, how dare you tell Nancy I'm dating Roger! You sneaky rat!

Jo: Care to say that to my face, Barbie?

Blair: No. In fact, I never want to speak to you again... ever!

Sue Ann: Blair, I agree with Jo. You oughtta be ashamed of yourself, dating Nancy's boyfriend...

Jo: Stay out of this, hayseed!

Cindy: Who are you calling 'hayseed', you Bronx bully?!

All: (Yelling and crosstalk ensues, and girls get into each other's faces)

Garrett: Girls! Girls! GIRLS! (Whistles loudly)

I actually would have loved to see that! Imagine something like this:


Blair: Jo, how dare you tell Nancy I'm dating Roger! You sneaky rat!

Jo: Care to say that to my face, Barbie?

Blair: No. In fact, I never want to speak to you again... ever!

Sue Ann: Blair, I agree with Jo. You oughtta be ashamed of yourself, dating Nancy's boyfriend...

Jo: Stay out of this, hayseed!

Cindy: Who are you calling 'hayseed', you Bronx bully?!

All: (Yelling and crosstalk ensues, and girls get into each other's faces)

Garrett: Girls! Girls! GIRLS! (Whistles loudly)

Ha! You would have made a great writer for the show!

No problem. :wave:


Ratings over the summer were very strong well before Jo arrived at Eastland, which didn't occur until November 1980. In fact, they were much bigger than the show's last couple of feeble years on the air, when no-one was tuning in anymore.

That last bit I find very interesting to hear they were bigger and it also explains why on earth NBC torpedoed the Blair spin off...there is no question that she was the breakout character on FOL and continuing with her was the natural choice and I myself would have loved the return to the Eastland setting.

Ha! You would have made a great writer for the show!

Thanks! :lol:

(I also think '80s Sitcoms would have made a great writer for the show. Have you seen his "All Eight Girls in All Nine Seasons" guide? Definitely worth checking out.)

AC, your profile says you live in Albany. This has made me curious. Have you ever visited the Peekskill area? Or, alternately, have you been to any of the real-life sites mentioned in the show? For example, Bergdorf's (mentioned in "The Little Chill")? If so, can you share your thoughts in a thread, here? I'd love to read about it, and I know others, here, would as well.

But Cindy was younger than Sue Ann, confirmed in "Running". There's no way Cindy was the same age as Blair. She's visibly younger.


CINDY was 14 years old and BLAIR and SUE ANN 15 years old: she probably looked visibly younger cos that was her real age (JULIE ANN HADDOCK was really 14) whereas JULIE PIEKARSKI and LISA WHELCHEL were already 16 years old in real life.:wave:

Some people appear older or younger than what they are. The ages of Cindy and Julie Ann matched. Both were 14 during the first season of FOL. In real life Lisa is two years older than Julie Ann. They just made Lisa 2 years older through the years. First she was born in 1965, then she was born in 1963.


There is an explanation for the confusion: LISA WHELCHEL was born in 1963, whereas BLAIR WARNER in 1964-1965 on the show.:wave:

Nobodies? Nobodies! Sacrilige LOL

Respectfully disagree on Jo being needed to carry a Lost Girls story. The Lost Girls represent PURE Facts of Life...the show it was always meant to be. This should have totally been their episode. One has to wonder if they ate some humble pie and tried to get Molly Ringwald to return.


Bravo! finally someone who gives credit to the 'LOST GIRLS'! No offense to the JO fans up there, but FOL was already a hit before: BLAIR as one of the main ones kept the show going, along with the rest of the crew on season 1!:wave:

People actually started turning in during the repeats of the 1st season. The ratings increased from the original showings. But by then the cast changes had already been made.


Interesting! I didn't know that:confused:

Yep. And here's the proof. Here are the Nielsen Ratings for the last week of July, 1980, as reported in the Reno Gazette-Journal on August 6, 1980:

1. "The Jeffersons," 21.6. CBS
2. "Trapper John, M.D.," 21.3, CBS
3. "Airport 77," Part II, 21.3, NBC
4. "Alice," 19.8, CBS
5. "Three's Company," 19.6, ABC
6. "MASH," 19.0, CBS
7. "Taxi," 18.7, ABC
8. "Fantasy Island," 18.3, ABC
9. "The Dukes of Hazzard," 18.2, CBS
10. "Dallas." 18.0, CBS
11. "Hart to Hart." 18.0, ABC
12. "60 Minutes," 17.8, CBS
13. "20-20," 16.8, ABC
14. "The Love Boat," 16.4, ABC
15. "WKRP in Cincinnati," 16.3, CBS
16. Flo," 15.6, CBS
17. "Laverne & Shirley" 15.4, ABC
18. "Facts of Life." 15.4, NBC
19. "Real People," 15.3, NBC
20. "House Calls," 15.3, CBS


The bottom five:
"CBS Reports" 8.3, CBS
"The Prince of Central Park," 7.8, CBS
"Brothers," 7.4. CBS
"Six O'Clock Follies," 7.0, NBC
"Good Time Harry," 6.9, NBC

The Facts of Life was pulling in very big numbers over the summer months, and was ranked #18 during that week. Those numbers were bigger, in fact, than the 1980-81 season, when The Facts of Life didn't rank in the Top 30, and much bigger, of course, than the ratings for The Facts of Life in the series' last two seasons, when the show didn't rank in the Top 30.

People will tell you that Jo "saved the show", but the ratings had already significantly improved well before Jo had even made it on the air: over 15 million people were tuning in, and the show had cracked the Top 20, becoming a top-rated series on NBC... actually, NBC's highest-ranked regular series.


Exactly my point: JO alone isn't 'THE FACTS OF LIFE' lol!:wave:

Jo saving the show...I don't think I could even bring myself to say those words out loud. For this fan the show was never quite as good after she was added to the cast and the others reduced until they vanished one by one. I just didn't care for her abraisive character...as I said in another post they already had the perfect foil for Blair...Sue Anne.


I'm always going to wonder what the show would have been like, had they not discovered JO and reduced the cast, but overall i'm glad it went on for so many seasons!:talk:

PS: you're right, SUE ANN was a good foil for BLAIR, and sometimes i feel as if JO had stolen her limelight (on season 1 BLAIR was the wild one, whereas from season 2 onward, JO was the wild one and BLAIR became the SUE ANN)

Exactly my point: JO alone isn't 'THE FACTS OF LIFE' lol!:wave:

Yep! :wave:

It was only when Mrs. Garrett left the show that ratings declined. I think that says a lot about who was really the most popular character.

I agree that Sue Ann was a GREAT foil for Blair. I don't mind that they added Jo, but I don't like this NM fan fiction that has somehow evolved, stating that Nancy McKeon somehow saved the show. History tells us otherwise, and if we're observant, we can find the articles that prove it's fiction.

I also agree with you that the show lost something important when the Lost Girls faded away. We lost the stories their characters could tell, and we were left with a show where the writers kept jettisoning the setting and adding in random characters no-one liked, in hopes of keeping the show alive. But by the Seventh Season, those revamps and character additions were showing cracks in the show's façade, and by Season Eight, The Facts of Life dropped out of the Top 30 entirely.


We can't turn back the clock (like on BACK TO THE FUTURE) unfortunately, and we will always wonder 'what if', which is why it's great to have the 'Fanfiction site' so that people can create stories that the TV wasn't able to put into screen!
And no, JO didn't save the show: every cast on FOL played their important part,:happyface and it wouldn't have had success without all of them on it.

Can't say I blame her...they did her and the other Lost Girls dirty. And from what you say about the ratings going up for the repeats then its fairly clear they pulled the trigger too soon on the retooling.

What might have been :(

The retooling, in retrospect, is weird. Plenty of shows have managed large casts, even in that era.

I think the producers realized their mistake too late, and invited the Lost Girls back as an acknowledgement that mistakes had been made on the part of the show, and NBC. After all, it couldn't have been cheap to bring back three/four girls for eight episodes. As '80s points out, "Gossip" was pushed up in production order, as if the producers realized the audience was tuning out: Season Two didn't crack the Top 30.

Yep! :wave:

It was only when Mrs. Garrett left the show that ratings declined. I think that says a lot about who was really the most popular character.

MRS G of course! (but you know i also vote for BLAIR:happyface cos she's my favourite of all the girls!)

Here are the yearly ratings and rank for “Facts of Life”. Ratings did not go down for season 2 and were still above that episode from the summer that you pointed out above (that episode got a 15.4 rating, and season 2 had an average rating of 19.3). The season when they opened “Over Our Heads” was the highest-ranked - thought not highest-rated - season.

1979-1980 Fri. 8:30 p.m. 4.5 #74
1980-1981 Wed. 9:30 p.m. 19.3 #26
1981-1982 Wed. 9:00 p.m. 19.1 #24
1982-1983 Wed. 9:00 p.m. 17.1 #32
1983-1984 Wed. 9:00 p.m. 17.3 #24
1984-1985 Wed. 9:00 p.m. 16.3 #34
1985-1986 Sat. 8:30 p.m. 17.7 #27
1986-1987 Sat. 8:00 p.m. 16.3 #31
1987-1988 Sat. 8:00 p.m. 14.6 #37

Here are the yearly ratings and rank for “Facts of Life”. Ratings did not go down for season 2 and were still above that episode from the summer that you pointed out above (that episode got a 15.4 rating, and season 2 had an average rating of 19.3). The season when they opened “Over Our Heads” was the highest-ranked - thought not highest-rated - season.

1979-1980 Fri. 8:30 p.m. 4.5 #74
1980-1981 Wed. 9:30 p.m. 19.3 #26
1981-1982 Wed. 9:00 p.m. 19.1 #24
1982-1983 Wed. 9:00 p.m. 17.1 #32
1983-1984 Wed. 9:00 p.m. 17.3 #24
1984-1985 Wed. 9:00 p.m. 16.3 #34
1985-1986 Sat. 8:30 p.m. 17.7 #27
1986-1987 Sat. 8:00 p.m. 16.3 #31
1987-1988 Sat. 8:00 p.m. 14.6 #37


Does that mean season 1 had the highest score? Wow great but i cannot believe it! And in that case the LOST GIRL got dismissed unfairly...:confused:

I actually would have loved to see that! Imagine something like this:


Blair: Jo, how dare you tell Nancy I'm dating Roger! You sneaky rat!

Jo: Care to say that to my face, Barbie?

Blair: No. In fact, I never want to speak to you again... ever!

Sue Ann: Blair, I agree with Jo. You oughtta be ashamed of yourself, dating Nancy's boyfriend...

Jo: Stay out of this, hayseed!

Cindy: Who are you calling 'hayseed', you Bronx bully?!

All: (Yelling and crosstalk ensues, and girls get into each other's faces)

Garrett: Girls! Girls! GIRLS! (Whistles loudly)


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

I can actually see that happening and here is more:

Molly: when will you guys start behaving like WOMEN instead of little kids?
Nat: You stole Nancy's boyfriend? Don't you have enough boys to date, Blair?
Tootie: wait until Nancy finds out! There's going to be trouble!

Thanks! :lol:

(I also think '80s Sitcoms would have made a great writer for the show. Have you seen his "All Eight Girls in All Nine Seasons" guide? Definitely worth checking out.)

AC, your profile says you live in Albany. This has made me curious. Have you ever visited the Peekskill area? Or, alternately, have you been to any of the real-life sites mentioned in the show? For example, Bergdorf's (mentioned in "The Little Chill")? If so, can you share your thoughts in a thread, here? I'd love to read about it, and I know others, here, would as well.

Being a Lost Girl's fan I'll hae to check out that guide!

Getting down to Peekskill (2 to 3 hours drive south) has ALWAYS been on my bucket list. The target would be to see some school there that somewhere over the years supposedly was the basis for Eastland.Also there must be some sort of nod to FOL in the town to find lake maybe an autographed photo of Lisa Welchel in a diner of something like that. LOL. I'm getting fired up now. This summer it needs to happen!! Thanks for ligthing a fire under me.

Bravo! finally someone who gives credit to the 'LOST GIRLS'! No offense to the JO fans up there, but FOL was already a hit before: BLAIR as one of the main ones kept the show going, along with the rest of the crew on season 1!:wave:

Absolutly...man its been like what 40 years and I still remember being bum puzzled and sad when the new season premiered and I was like...where are the girls? No more dorm?! A new character who's got a nasty chip on her shoulder? What happened to my FACTS OF LIFE?!

Being a Lost Girl's fan I'll hae to check out that guide!

Getting down to Peekskill (2 to 3 hours drive south) has ALWAYS been on my bucket list. The target would be to see some school there that somewhere over the years supposedly was the basis for Eastland.Also there must be some sort of nod to FOL in the town to find lake maybe an autographed photo of Lisa Welchel in a diner of something like that. LOL. I'm getting fired up now. This summer it needs to happen!! Thanks for ligthing a fire under me.


Wow lucky you! Can i come along to Peekskill with you? (i would love to see the old 'Eastland school for girls'!:lol:

There is absolutely no private schools in Peekskill. There is a boys school not too far named Millbrook Academy.

There is absolutely no private schools in Peekskill. There is a boys school not too far named Millbrook Academy.

Allegedly Eastland was modeled after St. Marys in Peekskill...this is what I would look for. Whether its still operational I don't know.https://www.cardcow.com/images/set457/card00773_fr.jpg

Eastland was modeled after Westlake. Which was the school Mindy Cohn came from. Isn't St. Mary's a convent rather than a school.

Here are the yearly ratings and rank for “Facts of Life”. Ratings did not go down for season 2 and were still above that episode from the summer that you pointed out above (that episode got a 15.4 rating, and season 2 had an average rating of 19.3). The season when they opened “Over Our Heads” was the highest-ranked - thought not highest-rated - season.

Thanks for the numbers, TV Guy.

Nielsen's rankings for the show did go down, since FOL hit #18 that week, and I haven't seen any evidence that there was a higher number in Season Two (though I'm open to seeing numbers). Also, you're mistaken when you say the first OOH season ranked above any other seasons. OOH debuted in Season Seven, as we all know. Season Seven ranked at #27, which isn't above #26 (S2) or #24 (S3 and S5).

But my point was that the show started generating strong numbers for NBC well before Nancy McKeon joined the cast. This is fact.

Allegedly Eastland was modeled after St. Marys in Peekskill...this is what I would look for. Whether its still operational I don't know.https://www.cardcow.com/images/set457/card00773_fr.jpg

We all know that the producers took inspiration from Westlake for Diff'rent Strokes' "Eastlake" (which became Eastland in The Facts of Life). But that doesn't mean they weren't also inspired by private girls' schools the Peekskill area, and just getting to see a private girls' school in Peekskill would be quite a thrill for me!

A NYT article indicates that the Mount Saint Florence school in Peekskill was razed in 1995. However, this (https://newyorkhistoryblog.org/2015/11/magdalen-new-views-of-girls-in-trouble/) indicates that Mount Saint Mary's school for girls, also in Peekskill, closed in 1975.

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

I can actually see that happening and here is more:

Molly: when will you guys start behaving like WOMEN instead of little kids?
Nat: You stole Nancy's boyfriend? Don't you have enough boys to date, Blair?
Tootie: wait until Nancy finds out! There's going to be trouble!

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

Haha! That would totally work! Well done, Valentina!

Being a Lost Girl's fan I'll hae to check out that guide!

Getting down to Peekskill (2 to 3 hours drive south) has ALWAYS been on my bucket list. The target would be to see some school there that somewhere over the years supposedly was the basis for Eastland.Also there must be some sort of nod to FOL in the town to find lake maybe an autographed photo of Lisa Welchel in a diner of something like that. LOL. I'm getting fired up now. This summer it needs to happen!! Thanks for ligthing a fire under me.

Way cool, A.C.!

When you go, please take photos, and post them here, for fans here to see, if there's anything relevant. Maybe a cozy bakery selling gourmet quiches, or a stable with a horse coincidentally named Chestnut, or anything like that.

I promise to do the same thing, eventually, when I get out to LA and visit some of the locations there: Sunset Gower Studios, and the school that is now built on top of Metromedia Square, and of course Pomona College, where there once was ivy covering the school buildings. I not only want to get pictures of the dorm, I want to see if I can find the field where the girls were wrestling one another; the building that served as the exterior of the Tiny Cafeteria; the courtyard area where Tootie rollerskated (and Sue Ann and Blair tried to avoid her); and maybe even the other buildings we very briefly saw.

I actually would have loved to see that! Imagine something like this:


Blair: Jo, how dare you tell Nancy I'm dating Roger! You sneaky rat!

Jo: Care to say that to my face, Barbie?

Blair: No. In fact, I never want to speak to you again... ever!

Sue Ann: Blair, I agree with Jo. You oughtta be ashamed of yourself, dating Nancy's boyfriend...

Jo: Stay out of this, hayseed!

Cindy: Who are you calling 'hayseed', you Bronx bully?!

All: (Yelling and crosstalk ensues, and girls get into each other's faces)

Garrett: Girls! Girls! GIRLS! (Whistles loudly)

*sigh* if only :(

Here is a famous All Girls School near AC's area.
https://www.emmawillard.org/

This is the private boarding school that I grew up near about an hour NE of Peekskill. It's now coed, but during the early year's of FOL, it was all boys. My father worked there so I would hang around the gym sometimes and shoot basket. I got to know some of the boys there and hung out with them. We all were around the age of the older girls to Cindy. It gave me a perspective of life was like at a boarding school, though there was differences between boys and girls boarding school.
https://www.millbrook.org/

One of my friends father warned him about dating girls like Blair. He said girls like Blair would land you into bankruptcy court eventually. Most of my friends were Nancy the character, Sue Ann, and Cindy fans.

I wondered how they picked the city of Peekskill as the location for the series.

This is the private boarding school that I grew up near about an hour NE of Peekskill. It's now coed, but during the early year's of FOL, it was all boys. My father worked there so I would hang around the gym sometimes and shoot basket. I got to know some of the boys there and hung out with them. We all were around the age of the older girls to Cindy. It gave me a perspective of life was like at a boarding school, though there was differences between boys and girls boarding school.
https://www.millbrook.org/

One of my friends father warned him about dating girls like Blair. He said girls like Blair would land you into bankruptcy court eventually. Most of my friends were Nancy the character, Sue Ann, and Cindy fans.

Thanks for the recollections, 80s Dude. Always nice to get some reminiscing from that era. And I can definitely imagine dating Blair (or a girl like her) might be really expensive! :lol:

Millbrook School looks very cool. I had no idea there were any high schools in the US with their own zoos. That Red Panda! Wow! :D

Thanks for the recollections, 80s Dude. Always nice to get some reminiscing from that era. And I can definitely imagine dating Blair (or a girl like her) might be really expensive! :lol:

Millbrook School looks very cool. I had no idea there were any high schools in the US with their own zoos. That Red Panda! Wow! :D

And my friends father said dating girls like Jo would land you into criminal court.

And my friends father said dating girls like Jo would land you into criminal court.

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


...And dating girls like Pippa would land you in Kangaroo Court! :lol:

(Sorry for the mention of Pippa in this thread, but it had to be said).

Way cool, A.C.!

When you go, please take photos, and post them here, for fans here to see, if there's anything relevant. Maybe a cozy bakery selling gourmet quiches, or a stable with a horse coincidentally named Chestnut, or anything like that.

I promise to do the same thing, eventually, when I get out to LA and visit some of the locations there: Sunset Gower Studios, and the school that is now built on top of Metromedia Square, and of course Pomona College, where there once was ivy covering the school buildings. I not only want to get pictures of the dorm, I want to see if I can find the field where the girls were wrestling one another; the building that served as the exterior of the Tiny Cafeteria; the courtyard area where Tootie rollerskated (and Sue Ann and Blair tried to avoid her); and maybe even the other buildings we very briefly saw.


Lucky for you guys! I live in the UK, so it won't be that simple for me to get there lol! Just make sure you send photos online ok?:wave:

Lucky for you guys! I live in the UK, so it won't be that simple for me to get there lol! Just make sure you send photos online ok?:wave:

When I go, I promise to post photos here.

Thanks for the numbers, TV Guy.

Nielsen's rankings for the show did go down, since FOL hit #18 that week, and I haven't seen any evidence that there was a higher number in Season Two (though I'm open to seeing numbers). Also, you're mistaken when you say the first OOH season ranked above any other seasons. OOH debuted in Season Seven, as we all know. Season Seven ranked at #27, which isn't above #26 (S2) or #24 (S3 and S5).

But my point was that the show started generating strong numbers for NBC well before Nancy McKeon joined the cast. This is fact.

Yep - I was definitely wrong about that first OOH year. I had heard the cast say at the time that it was their biggest year ever and clearly that was not true.

But let’s not conflate Nielsen ratings with rankings. Success is measured (and advertisers make buys) based on ratings, not rankings. The ratings represent number of viewers, not rankings. Let’s say one week, the top 5 shows on TV have audiences of 25, 24, 23, 22, 21 million viewers respectively. The next week, the top 5 shows have ratings of 22, 21, 20, 19, 18 million viewers, respectively. The show that had an audience of 23 million viewers and ranked #3 for that week was higher rated than the show that ranked #1 the following week and had a 22 million viewers. Rankings are relative because they depend on how the other shows rated.

That season 1 episode mentioned earlier had a 15.4 rating. Each rating point represents a certain number of viewers (back then I think each rating point represented between 950K and 1 million viewers). The average rating for season 2 episodes was 18.2. The ratings were higher - and more people were watching - after the revamp and Nancy McKeon’s addition. This is fact.

Of all the remaining seasons, only season 9 had a lower average rating than that 15.4 rating.

Yep - I was definitely wrong about that first OOH year. I had heard the cast say at the time that it was their biggest year ever and clearly that was not true.

I think I even remember that interview. I know what you mean.


But let’s not conflate Nielsen ratings with rankings. Success is measured (and advertisers make buys) based on ratings, not rankings. The ratings represent number of viewers, not rankings. Let’s say one week, the top 5 shows on TV have audiences of 25, 24, 23, 22, 21 million viewers respectively. The next week, the top 5 shows have ratings of 22, 21, 20, 19, 18 million viewers, respectively. The show that had an audience of 23 million viewers and ranked #3 for that week was higher rated than the show that ranked #1 the following week and had a 22 million viewers. Rankings are relative because they depend on how the other shows rated.

Totally true. But it's also true that networks will crow if they have a top-ranked hit show, even if the actual ratings are lower than in a previous season.


That season 1 episode mentioned earlier had a 15.4 rating. Each rating point represents a certain number of viewers (back then I think each rating point represented between 950K and 1 million viewers).

Yes, I think Alex McNeil states this in his book.


The average rating for season 2 episodes was 18.2. The ratings were higher - and more people were watching - after the revamp and Nancy McKeon’s addition. This is fact.

Not when you look at individual episodes. Some later FOL episodes were getting as few as 9 million viewers. This is far below the 14-15.3 million viewers FOL started getting in Summer 1980. The documentaries have left out some facts.

When I go, I promise to post photos here.


You know, i'v been having a rerun of FOL and i am more convinced that by firing the 'lost girls', we not only lost the homey feeling of a boarding school with girls running about and the housemother trailing after them, but by introducing JO as the main character, and changing BLAIR's 'bad, wild girl' personality into the 'snobby, rich girl',we also lost what might have been.

From what we could see on the pilot episode 'the girl's school', it was obvious for many viewers that by behaving so rudely towards KIMBERLY'S housekeeper, MRS G (soon to become the housemother of this 'Eastland school for girls') BLAIR would become the main character: the first interaction between the 'ill-mannered' teenager and the middle aged housekeeper had all the ingredients needed for a bondage between her and MRS G!

In fact, the writers could have worked more on the BLAIR character by having MRS G tame her down a little: for example at getting caught with the boys or smoking (like on the pilot episode),but obviously they chose to ignore that, and instead of giving 4 young actresses the chance to shine, and show the potential they already had, they got rid of them, and the original FACTS OF LIFE was soon forgotten...

PS: If they really wanted to add a foil for BLAIR, they could have introduced us JO as another one of the girls (like you suggested before Retroguy2000) and i'm positive with 8 girls, the sitcom would have still been a success!:talk:

You know, i'v been having a rerun of FOL and i am more convinced that by firing the 'lost girls', we not only lost the homey feeling of a boarding school with girls running about and the housemother trailing after them, but by introducing JO as the main character, and changing BLAIR's 'bad, wild girl' personality into the 'snobby, rich girl',we also lost what might have been.

Valentina, you raise a good point about the change in Blair: by introducing Jo (who became at least as important as Blair), there definitely was a subtle shift in Blair's role. In Season One, it was Blair who broke curfew to stay out with Steve. It was Blair who went out with Tootie to get the horse/rabbits.

By Season Two, it's Jo who is instigating the trouble: she's the one who decides to go out and pick up men. Blair, when challenged, joins her.

As you say, we lost the home feeling of a boarding school (although, of course, we got a homey cafeteria).


From what we could see on the pilot episode 'the girl's school', it was obvious for many viewers that by behaving so rudely towards KIMBERLY'S housekeeper, MRS G (soon to become the housemother of this 'Eastland school for girls') BLAIR would become the main character: the first interaction between the 'ill-mannered' teenager and the middle aged housekeeper had all the ingredients needed for a bondage between her and MRS G!

You're right: Blair very quickly became the Head Girl, in part because the writers could make Blair antagonistic towards any other character, including Mrs. Garrett. But that changed in Season Two: Jo was now the antagonist, and the one who was motivating the storylines through her rebellion.


In fact, the writers could have worked more on the BLAIR character by having MRS G tame her down a little: for example at getting caught with the boys or smoking (like on the pilot episode),but obviously they chose to ignore that, and instead of giving 4 young actresses the chance to shine, and show the potential they already had, they got rid of them, and the original FACTS OF LIFE was soon forgotten...

PS: If they really wanted to add a foil for BLAIR, they could have introduced us JO as another one of the girls (like you suggested before Retroguy2000) and i'm positive with 8 girls, the sitcom would have still been a success!:talk:

We've seen the tail-end ratings for Season One, now, after the change in day/time, and so we know the problem wasn't "too many girls" but a horrible timeslot. When the show moved to a time after DS, ratings greatly improved. So, I think we know, now, that the show could have been a ratings success with 7 or even 8 girls. Certainly other shows managed it.

As you say, Blair no longer smoking, no longer being rebellious (except when being prodded by Jo) definitely shifted the character of Blair, and we didn't get the Rebel Blair vs Mrs. G anymore. At least, not like in S1.

I've always taken Tootie's line, "You remember Jo?" as pretty accurate: they clearly remembered Jo, but they were never very close. We saw them together in a handful of episodes, and Sue Ann and Cindy took one class with Jo, but they were never close companions to Jo the way Tootie, Blair, and Natalie were, because the Core Four were busy washing dishes and scrubbing floors during two years.

Exactly. This kept coming up again and again at this board years ago, posters crying out "They act live they've never met Jo! That's ridiculous! Why don't they know her??" but like you just detailed, it's not that way at all. They do know Jo, just not on such a personal level as their former roommates Blair, Natalie, and Tootie.


There's one more line that I feel is somewhat weak. Nancy says something about Jo not being "the wildcat we've all heard about". But Nancy herself was there for Jo and Blair's big fight in "Gossip". I chalk this up to Nancy just not remembering an incident from six years earlier.

But she doesn't see them fight.


I agree that if it had been a year earlier (or even five episodes earlier), we would have gotten a very nice Mrs. Garrett/Lost Girls reunion. We could have had flashbacks to Mrs. Garrett bringing a cupcake and milk to Cindy, in "Rough Housing". We could have flashed back to Sue Ann and Mrs. Garrett sharing a moment in front of the Mirror of Reflection in "Dieting". We could have seen the memory of Mrs. Garrett putting a flower in Nancy's hair, from "Dope". We could even have had a scene showing Mrs. Garrett comforting Molly, from "Molly's Holiday". We could have even had enough flashbacks for a two-parter.

Oh, how wonderful that would have been!


Also, I disagree that "The Little Chill" was a Jo vehicle; that was a Sue Ann-centered episode, for sure.

Now, I do disagree with that. I also say the focus is more on Jo. Sue Ann isn't even honest as herself through most of the episode. She's "hiding something". And she's group in with the other girls, whereas Jo stands out as "the lone wolf" here, the "outsider" whom we as the audience are supposed to be drawn into and focus on ("Oh no! America's Jo! This isn't right!").

But Cindy was younger than Sue Ann, confirmed in "Running". There's no way Cindy was the same age as Blair. She's visibly younger.

Yes, Blair and Lisa were both clearly older than Cindy and Julie Anne.

I'm not surprise the lost girls reunion episode is Jo centered. More people started watching the show when Jo was added and probably didn't know who the lost girls were.

Very true.

The writers were probably thinking "crap, what have we done bringing these nobodies back?"

:lol: Well, I don't know about that, because they took the time and trouble to write a show all about the Lost Girls reuniting with the others.


Their solution was to make it a Jo episode. You have to love the irony that the episode the lost girls return in and should be about them is really about Jo the character who replaced them all. The writers of this episode are very clever pointing out the fact that the lost girls still need Jo to help them get people watching an episode they're in.

mmm, I don't know. I mean it just naturally makes sense to have Jo the outsider since she totally missed out on that dorm season. I think the audience would have been fine without her being the focus as much if they had focused more on reminiscing with the Lost Girls and using more flashback clips.

I just can't believe until now how obvious the writers for The Little Chill really made it clear Jo was the saving grace in their minds since they had her steal the story from the lost girls that episode.

What is interesting about this is that that duo of writers had never written for FOL before. This was their first episode. It makes you wonder if they were big fans of the first season and wanted to bring those girls back as a tribute to the charter viewers of the show?

They reached out to Molly, but she refused.

Do we know this for a solid "fact"? I hope so. Man, would that have been an interesting phone conversation! phone:

Jo: Stay out of this, hayseed!

:rofl:

Thanks! :lol:

(I also think '80s Sitcoms would have made a great writer for the show. Have you seen his "All Eight Girls in All Nine Seasons" guide? Definitely worth checking out.)

That was so much loving fun to do...and yes, Retro and I both have contributed little "fan scenes" here and there on the board, creating dialogue that could have been or we would have loved to see. This board has definitely been an outlet for my creative juices!

As you say, Blair no longer being rebellious (except when being prodded by Jo) definitely shifted the character of Blair, and we didn't get the Rebel Blair vs Mrs. G anymore. At least, not like in S1.

Yeah. She still had her moments though, like planning to go to an event with Roger (platonically) behind Nancy's back, and asking Jo to lie for her.

Exactly. This kept coming up again and again at this board years ago, posters crying out "They act live they've never met Jo! That's ridiculous! Why don't they know her??" but like you just detailed, it's not that way at all. They do know Jo, just not on such a personal level as their former roommates Blair, Natalie, and Tootie.


I know. Every couple of years, we do see this question, here. And I've seen it over on YouTube as well. I think some viewers got the impression that the Core Four hung out often with the Lost Girls between episodes. But if that were the case, those hang-out sessions rarely included Jo.


But she doesn't see them fight.

Nancy is there for the end of the fight, when Jo and Blair realize they've been fighting amongst themselves, and the culprit was actually Tootie. But it's possible that Nancy was just dreaming of Roger during most of that scene... :lol:

Yeah. She still had her moments though, like planning to go to an event with Roger (platonically) behind Nancy's back, and asking Jo to lie for her.

And I wonder if that wasn't because they had more girls in the episode. Pare it down to four girls, and Blair is simply Le Snob. Bring it back to seven girls, and suddenly, you get Blair being daring again, "stealing" Nancy's boyfriend so she can meet Baryshnikov. The interactions change when more girls are added.

That was so much loving fun to do...and yes, Retro and I both have contributed little "fan scenes" here and there on the board, creating dialogue that could have been or we would have loved to see. This board has definitely been an outlet for my creative juices!

"Don't you dare" stop! I love those scenes.

(Though I think my favorite, ever, might be the "Good King Wenceslas/Mr. Crocker" parody).

I know. Every couple of years, we do see this question, here. And I've seen it over on YouTube as well. I think some viewers got the impression that the Core Four hung out often with the Lost Girls between episodes. But if that were the case, those hang-out sessions rarely included Jo.



Nancy is there for the end of the fight, when Jo and Blair realize they've been fighting amongst themselves, and the culprit was actually Tootie. But it's possible that Nancy was just dreaming of Roger during most of that scene... :lol:



And I wonder if that wasn't because they had more girls in the episode. Pare it down to four girls, and Blair is simply Le Snob. Bring it back to seven girls, and suddenly, you get Blair being daring again, "stealing" Nancy's boyfriend so she can meet Baryshnikov. The interactions change when more girls are added.


Once again, you're so right 'retroguyy2000'! BLAIR is only herself on season 1 :after that, she's only the clone to the 'wild exciting girl' we got to love on the first season and who made an entrance! (Gosh i really miss the old BLAIR before she was a blond!):wave:

I know. Every couple of years, we do see this question, here. And I've seen it over on YouTube as well.

It's the same thing with "Starstruck" when people would keep posting here about "OMG why did Mrs. Garrett let Tootie go to a concert after a tantrum?!?" It is not a "tantrum". It is hysteria. Mrs. Garrett says so, and Kim plays it so. How do people not know the difference? I don't know...


Nancy is there for the end of the fight, when Jo and Blair realize they've been fighting amongst themselves, and the culprit was actually Tootie. But it's possible that Nancy was just dreaming of Roger during most of that scene... :lol:

lol, but if you'll remember, Mrs. Garrett says to Tootie that Blair and Jo aren't speaking to each other. So Nancy saw them be silent, not fighting.


And I wonder if that wasn't because they had more girls in the episode. Pare it down to four girls, and Blair is simply Le Snob. Bring it back to seven girls, and suddenly, you get Blair being daring again, "stealing" Nancy's boyfriend so she can meet Baryshnikov. The interactions change when more girls are added.

Oooo, good food for "le thought"!

"Don't you dare" stop! I love those scenes.

(Though I think my favorite, ever, might be the "Good King Wenceslas/Mr. Crocker" parody).

Ah, yes..."Ye Chang'd Mr. Crocker":

"Mr. Crocker 'Look-ed' Out" :lol: I loved doing that one!

Once again, you're so right 'retroguyy2000'! BLAIR is only herself on season 1 :after that, she's only the clone to the 'wild exciting girl' we got to love on the first season and who made an entrance! (Gosh i really miss the old BLAIR before she was a blond!):wave:

I don't mind seasons two through six Blair... but eventually, we even get a further change in Blair. In later years, Blair actually becomes so snobby that she actually becomes dumb. There's a Season Nine episode where, after talking to Pippa, she says she had no idea the U.S. minted coins.

Of course, we know this can't be correct, since Blair used a coin-operated payphone in early seasons of the show.

This change shows how far the premise of the series had wandered: you now have Blair as an airhead, who doesn't even know what pocket change is.

I don't mind seasons two through six Blair... but eventually, we even get a further change in Blair. In later years, Blair actually becomes so snobby that she actually becomes dumb. There's a Season Nine episode where, after talking to Pippa, she says she had no idea the U.S. minted coins.

Of course, we know this can't be correct, since Blair used a coin-operated payphone in early seasons of the show.

This change shows how far the premise of the series had wandered: you now have Blair as an airhead, who doesn't even know what pocket change is.


I noticed the changes in BLAIR after MRS G leaves the show: during the 'Eastland years' you see her gradually mature (especially by season 4) after all, EDNA had a great influence on her! But after she's gone, BLAIR eventually turns into a 'dumb blonde', which is why by then i stopped watching...:confused:

I noticed the changes in BLAIR after MRS G leaves the show: during the 'Eastland years' you see her gradually mature (especially by season 4) after all, EDNA had a great influence on her! But after she's gone, BLAIR eventually turns into a 'dumb blonde', which is why by then i stopped watching...:confused:

Glad to know I'm not the only one who felt like the changes to Blair's character in later seasons were not good ones.

Valentina, when did you start watching the show?

Glad to know I'm not the only one who felt like the changes to Blair's character in later seasons were not good ones.

Valentina, when did you start watching the show?


You know, i'm glad you asked me that question 'RetroGuy2000'! i actually grew up with DIFFERENT STROKES, and only discovered FOL while watching the pilot episode 'The girl's school': i was so fascinated with the 'bad girl' BLAIR character interacting with MRS G (it reminded me so much of the ENID BLYTON books i used to read, where the 'bad girl' turns out to be a 'good one'). I'd become so attached to the BLAIR character from season 1 rebelling against the housemother, that i actually decided to buy the FOL set in the hope there would be more interaction between 'naughty girl' vs housemother. Instead we got JO, and to my big disappointment they rewrote the BLAIR character, and the role as the no nonsense housemother trying to straighten the 'troubled' or 'naughty' character vanished forever....:(

You know, i'm glad you asked me that question 'RetroGuy2000'! i actually grew up with DIFFERENT STROKES, and only discovered FOL while watching the pilot episode 'The girl's school': i was so fascinated with the 'bad girl' BLAIR character interacting with MRS G (it reminded me so much of the ENID BLYTON books i used to read, where the 'bad girl' turns out to be a 'good one'). I'd become so attached to the BLAIR character from season 1 rebelling against the housemother, that i actually decided to buy the FOL set in the hope there would be more interaction between 'naughty girl' vs housemother. Instead we got JO, and to my big disappointment they rewrote the BLAIR character, and the role as the no nonsense housemother trying to straighten the 'troubled' or 'naughty' character vanished forever....:(

I think Tootie got the naughty role in Season 1. Blair became more of the lose girl on campus. Then she got Suzanne's conservative values gradually through the years.

You know, i'm glad you asked me that question 'RetroGuy2000'!

Please, just call me Retro.

i actually grew up with DIFFERENT STROKES, and only discovered FOL while watching the pilot episode 'The girl's school': i was so fascinated with the 'bad girl' BLAIR character interacting with MRS G (it reminded me so much of the ENID BLYTON books i used to read, where the 'bad girl' turns out to be a 'good one').

I only read a couple of the Enid Blyton books as an adult, but I know what you mean.


I'd become so attached to the BLAIR character from season 1 rebelling against the housemother, that i actually decided to buy the FOL set in the hope there would be more interaction between 'naughty girl' vs housemother. Instead we got JO, and to my big disappointment they rewrote the BLAIR character, and the role as the no nonsense housemother trying to straighten the 'troubled' or 'naughty' character vanished forever....:(

Jo definitely shook things up. The series had such a major revamp after the first season.

At the end of the Gossip episode, all 7 girls (sans Molly) got together and helped Tootie with those envelops. Yet 6 years later, they hardly knew Jo. You would think from licking all those envelops together that the girls would get to know one another and they were hanging out together at the table before Mrs. Garrett came out to have Tootie stuff all those envelopes.

At the end of the Gossip episode, all 7 girls (sans Molly) got together

Quit leaving Molly out!!

-

;)

Quit leaving Molly out!!

-

Molly: Leaving me out is anti woman!

Molly: Leaving me out is anti woman!

:brent

[…] only time we see tomboy Cindy in a SKIRT!

Oh, no. We see Cindy in her in her Eastland uniform in all of the classroom scenes. So, "Facts of Love", "Adoption", the money-borrowing scene in "The Return of Mr. Garrett", and also "Front Page", (from memory, anyway). It's just the non-classroom scenes where she's dressed more like a tomboy. Eastland administration wasn't going to allow Cindy to just wear, like, jeans in the classroom.

I know, and I realized that so I deleted my message while you were still typing. You're too fast again!

I've noticed, "RetJo," you have this annoying penchant for occasionally quoting me when I've tried to edit or delete a post. :lol: ;)

I realized it was just seeing this "still life" of Cindy in a skirt that strikes one as so odd. But, it is the first time we see her in a burgundy skirt with a blue sweater.

I know, and I realized that so I deleted my message while you were still typing. You're too fast again!

I've noticed, "RetJo," you have this annoying penchant for occasionally quoting me when I've tried to edit or delete a post. :lol: ;)

Oops. Sorry. :lol:

...And I can't come up with a Blair-inspired nickname, so we'll have to stick with '80sSitcoms.

:lol:


I realized it was just seeing this "still life" of Cindy in a skirt that strikes one as so odd. But, it is the first time we see her in a burgundy skirt with a blue sweater.

But we saw her in promotional photos as early as the first season, wearing the full uniform, including the blue sweater. I mean, I suppose you can argue she's not wearing a burgundy skirt here, but why? :lol:

Oops. Sorry. :lol:

...And I can't come up with a Blair-inspired nickname, so we'll have to stick with '80sSitcoms.

:lol:

"BlairysSitcoms"? :lol:


But we saw her in promotional photos as early as the first season, wearing the full uniform, including the blue sweater. I mean, I suppose you can argue she's not wearing a burgundy skirt here, but why? :lol:

Yes we can assume, but we've never seen until "Gossip".

And why did you too use a giant photo?? :eek: :lol:

"BlairysSitcoms"? :lol:


Okay, not horrible.


Yes we can assume, but we've never seen until "Gossip".

I think that can't be right. See below for photographic evidence.


And why did you too use a giant photo?? :eek: :lol:

I figured you were such a huge Cindy Webster fan that you wouldn't mind seeing every pore on Cindy's face! :lol:

I think that can't be right. See below for photographic evidence.

Hahaha! :lol: Arrrrgh, yet another line cut from the DVDs! :rofl:

Hahaha! :lol: Arrrrgh, yet another line cut from the DVDs! :rotl:

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

As it turns out, we see Cindy in her blue sweater and burgundy skirt again, in "Dieting", in the Tiny Cafeteria:

I think Chestnut got more air time than Nancy O. in Flash Flood.

I think Chestnut got more air time than Nancy O. in Flash Flood.

It's true! :lol::eek:

As it turns out, we see Cindy in her blue sweater and burgundy skirt again, in "Dieting", in the Tiny Cafeteria:

:brent

As it turns out, we see Cindy in her blue sweater and burgundy skirt again, in "Dieting", in the Tiny Cafeteria:

Alright, alright, I can take a joke and laugh at myself!

-

Alright, alright, I can take a joke and laugh at myself!

-

:lol:

It was just meant as a gentle nudge, nothing more, I promise.

Alright, alright, I can take a joke and laugh at myself!

-

LOL!

Sue Ann: OK we get it Cindy, stop pointing out your uniform color choices! ;)

LOL!

Sue Ann: OK we get it Cindy, stop pointing out your uniform color choices! ;)

:brent

-

-

:uplol:

:lol:

It was just meant as a gentle nudge, nothing more, I promise.

Oh, I know. That was a friendly "!", not an angry "!" :lol: