Do you think the fact that Margie Peters and Linda March coming from One Day at a Time (a show with 5 characters) and having no experience with shows with multiple characters was one of the reasons for the Great Purge?

Many of other Norman Lear's shows had more than 5 characters even if all of them didn't appear in every single show. All in the Family had the Bunker family, the Jeffersons in the early years, Harry the bartender, among other characters. Good Times had the Evans family, Winona, Bookman (more than 5 characters).

Mary Tyler Moore had more than 5 main characters as did family shows like the Brady Bunch and Partridge family. I think Peters and Marsh just didn't know how to handle a larger cast. You could see that they were running out of plot ideas by Season 3 because they had so few characters to write for. We got characters like Miko and Princess Alexandra who were in only a few episodes and then disappeared without explanation.

Do you think the fact that Margie Peters and Linda March coming from One Day at a Time (a show with 5 characters) and having no experience with shows with multiple characters was one of the reasons for the Great Purge?

Yes. Margie says so herself, in the Reelz documentary: "We wanted to go deeper." and according to her, you could only "go deeper" by expelling half of the cast. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense: you can focus on individual characters without shoehorning characters into roles in which they never fit. Having Jo suddenly decide to become a nun and hit Blair is an excellent example of "breaking" a character so you can force her into a script.


Many of other Norman Lear's shows had more than 5 characters even if all of them didn't appear in every single show. All in the Family had the Bunker family, the Jeffersons in the early years, Harry the bartender, among other characters. Good Times had the Evans family, Winona, Bookman (more than 5 characters).

Mary Tyler Moore had more than 5 main characters as did family shows like the Brady Bunch and Partridge family.

Yes, all good examples of hit shows that didn't need cast purges to make them successful.

I think Peters and Marsh just didn't know how to handle a larger cast. You could see that they were running out of plot ideas by Season 3 because they had so few characters to write for. We got characters like Miko and Princess Alexandra who were in only a few episodes and then disappeared without explanation.

Yes. And so, very soon we began to see random characters being added. Few of them ever lasted long, though, as they were never popular.

First, it's "Linda Marsh and Margie Peters" ;) That's how I've been reading those names since my first little formative "Facts" days, so the switched order seems so "out of whack" to me. :lol: :crazy:


You could see that they were running out of plot ideas by Season 3 because they had so few characters to write for. We got characters like Miko and Princess Alexandra who were in only a few episodes and then disappeared without explanation.

They weren't running out of plot ideas. There were new stories all over the place. Alex and Miko we think were attempts to broaden (albeit slightly) the student body and show the girls interacting with others a bit more, particularly since for whatever odd reason the Lost Girls had gotten really lost.


Yes. Margie says so herself, in the Reelz documentary: "We wanted to go deeper." and according to her, you could only "go deeper" by expelling half of the cast. Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense:

Weelllllllll, again, Margie Peters is NOT paying me to say this :lol:, but I do see where she's coming from. It is much easier to delve deeper into character psyches and stories if you have 5 characters as opposed to 12 (HotC), and get into the nuances of their minds and souls. But if you handle 12 in the right way, it can be effective (and besides, classes are often much larger than 9 students, so it comes off as very acceptable to watch a classroom TV show with 9 students).

Very interesting....

But do you know which character i would have loved to have stay a little longer, or even for the later seasons: BOOTSIE!!! (she was simply hilarious and totally cracked me up) She would have been great as a continuous foil/rival on BLAIR, and i could have seen more of their 'CATTY' moments fighting over boyfriends or the latest trend!

Of course JO was the main 'foil' for 'princess' BLAIR, but she's not the type to fight over a guy with her, as BOOTSIE would....

Comments on that one, anyone?

First, it's "Linda Marsh and Margie Peters" ;) That's how I've been reading those names since my first little formative "Facts" days, so the switched order seems so "out of whack" to me. :lol: :crazy:


:lol:


They weren't running out of plot ideas. There were new stories all over the place.

Welllll, were there really? Or was "The Americanization of Miko" somewhat of a retread of "Overachieving" (both featuring students' visiting fathers, and disapproving of what they saw, until being forced to come around, thanks to The Gang), while "Gamma Gamma or Bust" was somewhat of a retread of the "Gimme a Break" episode where Julie pledges the sorority.


Alex and Miko we think were attempts to broaden (albeit slightly) the student body and show the girls interacting with others a bit more, particularly since for whatever odd reason the Lost Girls had gotten really lost.

Not just Alex and Miko; Brenda, Terry, Emily, and Jenny, as well. Although, as I've pointed out before, they kept reusing the names Brenda and Emily. My god, the Emilys! :lol:


Weelllllllll, again, Margie Peters is NOT paying me to say this :lol:, but I do see where she's coming from. It is much easier to delve deeper into character psyches and stories if you have 5 characters as opposed to 12 (HotC),

But not much easier than 7, which was somehow "a zoo", "a circus", "ten, twelve girls", etc. :lol:

and get into the nuances of their minds and souls. But if you handle 12 in the right way, it can be effective (and besides, classes are often much larger than 9 students, so it comes off as very acceptable to watch a classroom TV show with 9 students).

No argument there!

Very interesting....

But do you know which character i would have loved to have stay a little longer, or even for the later seasons: BOOTSIE!!! (she was simply hilarious and totally cracked me up) She would have been great as a continuous foil/rival on BLAIR, and i could have seen more of their 'CATTY' moments fighting over boyfriends or the latest trend!

Of course JO was the main 'foil' for 'princess' BLAIR, but she's not the type to fight over a guy with her, as BOOTSIE would....

Comments on that one, anyone?

Boots was a hoot, whether with Blair or with Toot.

Budget was likely one reason for the change. A show with a cast of five regulars is cheaper to do than one with a cast of nine.

There are some shows that do well with a large cast, and some others that don’t. I can’t think of any three camera sitcom that handled a large cast very well, all of the examples are single camera shows. Degrassi: TNG was an example of a good show that handled a large cast well. I think they could have went the Degrassi route and kept all the girls but not focus on all of them in the same room/space/time/episode. But then they’d have to change the format at the show to allow for a greater budget, be on location, and change it to a single camera show, which would have made it more real, as opposed to being confined to an indoor studio all of the time. But obviously, this would have not happened in the ‘80s, as I think all sitcoms were three camera sitcoms with a live studio audience. This wouldn’t have happened with a Norman Lear show.

There are some shows that do well with a large cast, and some others that don’t. I can’t think of any three camera sitcom that handled a large cast very well, all of the examples are single camera shows.

Cheers, Saved By the Bell, and Head of the Class were multi-camera shows which managed large casts. And with the FOL cast enlargement that happened in later years, it's a little ironic. "We had to save the show by reducing the number of characters, and then added a bunch of... characters."

Cheers, Saved By the Bell, and Head of the Class were multi-camera shows which managed large casts. And with the FOL cast enlargement that happened in later years, it's a little ironic. "We had to save the show by reducing the number of characters, and then added a bunch of... characters."


I think the problem with FOL was: they changed the writers about million times (just kidding but many times) and everything got messed up!!!

For instance, the characters from the pilot 'The girls school' were written differently than by the time season 1 FOL aired: BLAIR was supposed to be the 'rebellious/cool' kid who broke the rules by smoking, and talking down to anyone who crossed her path (MRS G for example):lol:

NANCY is supposed to be a talented actress and the most popular girl at 'Eastland', who is on the verge of having to leave school unless she gets a scholarship.:)

SUE ANN is an airhead:crazy:

MOLLY is the fast talking kid:talk:

TOOTIE is the eye wide kid who always seems to get in TROUBLE!!! (she almost runs THE CROCK over with her roller skates):lol:

So with the new writers we get:

A new 'sophisticated/rich' BLAIR (although i'm happy to see she is still breaking the rules):D

SUE ANN is suddenly the brightest!

NANCY becomes a 'Wallpaper'

MOLLY an 'environmentalist'

TOOTIE is the fast talking/gossipy one

And too newcomers: CINDY and NAT!:wave:

I think it’s a combination of factors of why the cast was reduced. I don’t think it had anything to do with the incoming writers inexperience with large casts. Okay so some multi-camera shows did do large casts well. However, what’s different though for this show was, which valentina has already mentioned, was that the writers really lacked a sense of direction of where this show was supposed to go. The writers didn’t really know who their characters were and had not developed them enough so that they could all coexist successfully together in the same show. They were devised as archetypes and not as real people. Then the new writers came in using current trends and used existing formulas that they knew worked (“Little Darlings” and “very special episodes”), and applied it to the show to keep it alive. I think some characters were brought in to purport their views or existing characters were shoehorned into them, and then it came off as very forced to get their message across. Then they changed their writers up and they brought in new characters to keep it fresh, while some of the existing characters changed, and it just became a mess.

I think it’s a combination of factors of why the cast was reduced. I don’t think it had anything to do with the incoming writers inexperience with large casts. Okay so some multi-camera shows did do large casts well. However, what’s different though for this show was, which valentina has already mentioned, was that the writers really lacked a sense of direction of where this show was supposed to go. The writers didn’t really know who their characters were and had not developed them enough so that they could all coexist successfully together in the same show. They were devised as archetypes and not as real people. Then the new writers came in using current trends and used existing formulas that they knew worked (“Little Darlings” and “very special episodes”), and applied it to the show to keep it alive.

I think you raise a very valid point: it's clear the season 1 writers were a little lost.

I'm not sure, though, that the writers after season 5 were better: they kept introducing new characters that never worked out, replacing those ones with new ones, and then replacing them as well. The Kelly/Andy/Kevin/George/Bev/Pippa trail of bleached-bone characters speaks volumes.

For instance, the characters from the pilot 'The girls school' were written differently than by the time season 1 FOL aired:

MOLLY an 'environmentalist'

TOOTIE is the fast talking/gossipy one

Molly was the only one to have those fast-talking moments.