In Season 3, the writers introduced Miko, a new Japanese student at Eastland who is obsessed with Jo. She loves how Jo drives motorcycles, etc. She actually states she's fascinated with Jo. Although Miko only appears in two episodes, in both episodes, she hangs out in the cafeteria where her idol hangs out.

Then in Season 5, we're introduced to Kelly, who also has a very similar obsession with Jo. At one point, Kelly is in charge of a contest and the other characters imply that Kelly rigged the contest in favor of Jo because they know how obsessed she is with Jo.

Thinking about this today, I started wondering why the characters of Miko and Kelly were written so similarly, with regard to their fascination with Jo. Here is my theory.

Remember the character of Spike in Happy Days? He was only in a few episodes, but he was basically a mini-me clone of Fonzie: a younger, shorter version of The Fonz. The character didn't last long, maybe because the producers realized the limitations of a mini-me clone character wouldn't allow for long-term growth. But after Spike left, Chachi, Fonzie's younger greaser cousin suddenly appears, taking on a lot of the mini-me character aspects.

When the producers of FOL decided to add the character of Jo, they definitely were influenced strongly by the film "Little Darlings", as they based the entire "New Girl" script on the film. However, it seems quite clear to me that they based some of Jo's attributes not so much on Kristy McNichols' character but instead on Fonzie: she's a biker chick and the original character's name was Foxy, before they settled on Jo. They even gave Jo an ethnic last name, in the tradition of Fonzarelli on Happy Days.

Jo was meant to be the character who shook the show up, much like Fonzie on Happy Days. It seems natural, then, that since they modeled Jo on Fonzie, that they had this idea that other characters should worship her, much like the characters on Happy Days worshiped the Fonz. So Miko and Kelly become obsessed with Jo.

But the Fonz was almost like a superhero character: he could hit a jukebox at the diner and cause the exact right music to play. It was kind of stupid, but it was that character's trademark. Jo, being on a somewhat more realistic sitcom, didn't have superpowers, and she often failed at things, something which rarely happened to the Fonz. Therefore, Miko and Kelly's fascination with Jo seemed to play very differently: they worshiped someone who was just an ordinary girl with extraordinary (for the time) interests. It came off looking strange... not necessarily in the "strange" way Blair calls tomboy Cindy in Season 1, but "strange" as in, "why are these girls worshiping someone who is just a normal person?" way.

In making these two characters worship Jo, I think the writers helped doom these characters: they ended up having little depth, when they should have had their own attributes that viewers could have latched onto. And viewers may not have understood their obsession. What are other viewers' thoughts?

I know i'm the only (or one of the few) person who always liked KELLY (even though she sabotages 'EDNA's EDIBLES'): she was a strong character, whereas the likes of MIKO and ALEXANDRA were rather weak clones or admires!

I didn't like the "mini me" characters. They lack depth, have no shelf life and they are a feable attempt on cashing-in on the success of the most popular characters. They work in the short-term, but not long term. Had Jo had some super star status, it would made the audience understand their idolization better, but yeah, Jo was just an "Average Jo(e)," so it didn't make sense to keep their characters going.

I know i'm the only (or one of the few) person who always liked KELLY (even though she sabotages 'EDNA's EDIBLES'): she was a strong character, whereas the likes of MIKO and ALEXANDRA were rather weak clones or admires!

Nothing wrong with liking a character most others don't, Valentina! In fact, that's a good thing, as these boards need varying perspectives to discuss things properly.

You're right that Kelly was a strong-willed character. It would take a heck of a lot of chutzpah to vandalize Mrs. Garrett's shop. Neither Miko nor Alexandra could ever do such a thing.

I didn't like the "mini me" characters. They lack depth, have no shelf life and they are a feable attempt on cashing-in on the success of the most popular characters. They work in the short-term, but not long term. Had Jo had some super star status, it would made the audience understand their idolization better, but yeah, Jo was just an "Average Jo(e)," so it didn't make sense to keep their characters going.

I like the term "Average Jo(e)"! I mean, Jo was above average in many ways, but I agree she was just a normal person, not a hero.

The lack of depth of these characters makes me wonder if that was done on purpose; like, was it a conscious decision by the writers to focus on building up the character of Jo to hero status, and was that why they didn't want to build these new characters into their own roles? Or were they just throwing things into scripts to see what would stick?

Clearly, in Kelly's case, they wanted to duplicate the success of Jo, but seemed to forget the lessons that had made Jo the critical and popular success that she was: giving the character emotional depth with her fish-out-of-water storyline, bringing out the many conflicts in her family, and alternately showing her tougher side and her softer side. These character attributes gave the viewer sometimes obvious and sometimes more subtle hints as to why the character has been going down the wrong path before being "saved" by Mrs. Garrett and her trio of girls. Kelly the "street hood" in the town of Peekskill (population 18,236 in 1980) just couldn't ring as true.

I like the term "Average Jo(e)"! I mean, Jo was above average in many ways, but I agree she was just a normal person, not a hero.

The lack of depth of these characters makes me wonder if that was done on purpose; like, was it a conscious decision by the writers to focus on building up the character of Jo to hero status, and was that why they didn't want to build these new characters into their own roles? Or were they just throwing things into scripts to see what would stick?

Clearly, in Kelly's case, they wanted to duplicate the success of Jo, but seemed to forget the lessons that had made Jo the critical and popular success that she was: giving the character emotional depth with her fish-out-of-water storyline, bringing out the many conflicts in her family, and alternately showing her tougher side and her softer side. These character attributes gave the viewer sometimes obvious and sometimes more subtle hints as to why the character has been going down the wrong path before being "saved" by Mrs. Garrett and her trio of girls. Kelly the "street hood" in the town of Peekskill (population 18,236 in 1980) just couldn't ring as true.




Why did you write trio Retro???? MRS G had 4 girls (not 3)

:stupid::stupid::stupid::stupid::stupid::stupid::stupid::stupid::stupid::stupid::stupid:

Why did you write trio Retro???? MRS G had 4 girls (not 3)



Because Jo can't be saved by a quartet of girls that includes herself, right? She was saved from a life of crime by Mrs. Garrett and three other girls.

Jo becomes the fourth girl in "The New Girl", but before she joins the Core Four, there are only three girls in the cafeteria scene; the three girls who teach her what the Eastland spirit is. She's not taught by four girls.

I never understood what they producers wanted to do with the Miko character. Did they want another person of color to make the cast look more diverse? They even had an entire episode centered on her (a very slightly recycled script from Overachieving) and then pretty much dropped her like a hot potato.

I think Jo was a hybrid of Fonzie and Chaucci. She rode a motorcycle and dressed like the Fonz, but didn't have his maturity and wisdom. No one really looked to her for wisdom or advice. She had lots of Chacchi in her. A rebel without a cause who still had the streets in her, especially the first few seasons.

I never understood what they producers wanted to do with the Miko character. Did they want another person of color to make the cast look more diverse? They even had an entire episode centered on her (a very slightly recycled script from Overachieving) and then pretty much dropped her like a hot potato.

I think they definitely wanted another POC character (though this was long before the term POC became mainstream). Norman Lear wanted all of his shows diverse and hand-picked Geri; there clearly was an effort to promote diversity.

Unfortunately, there wasn't much to Miko, other than being Japanese and idolizing Jo, but there could have been, given some time and reconstruction of the character. I mean, had Miko been seen in more than two episodes, we couldn't rightly expect to see Miko idolizing Jo in every episode; that would have been as weird as what happened with Kelly. After a while, Jo would have started avoiding Miko, and it might have turned into Single White Female. :lol:

Of course, we'll never know, now. Warren Littlefield was probably just off camera, silently screaming, "There are too many girls in this scene! Twenty-four, forty-eight!"


I think Jo was a hybrid of Fonzie and Chaucci. She rode a motorcycle and dressed like the Fonz, but didn't have his maturity and wisdom. No one really looked to her for wisdom or advice. She had lots of Chacchi in her. A rebel without a cause who still had the streets in her, especially the first few seasons.

Huh. I never thought about Jo being like Chachi. I definitely have to think more about this.

I think they definitely wanted another POC character (though this was long before the term POC became mainstream). Norman Lear wanted all of his shows diverse and hand-picked Geri; there clearly was an effort to promote diversity.

Unfortunately, there wasn't much to Miko, other than being Japanese and idolizing Jo, but there could have been, given some time and reconstruction of the character. I mean, had Miko been seen in more than two episodes, we couldn't rightly expect to see Miko idolizing Jo in every episode; that would have been as weird as what happened with Kelly. After a while, Jo would have started avoiding Miko, and it might have turned into Single White Female. :lol:

Of course, we'll never know, now. Warren Littlefield was probably just off camera, silently screaming, "There are too many girls in this scene! Twenty-four, forty-eight!"



Huh. I never thought about Jo being like Chachi. I definitely have to think more about this.



Personally, i would have preferred if BRENDA became a regular: she seemed to mock BLAIR on one of the episodes where she had her birthday on (when she asks her how old she was) and i can see her ganging up with JO and NAT, trying to make fun of BLAIR's hair and snobbish attitude.
I can also see MRS G trying to mold BRENDA into loosening up, and become eventually part of the gang....

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

As for MIKO: she didn't fit it and had absolutely no chemistry with any of the girls (at least BRENDA had some dynamic with BLAIR and a quite a sharp tongue) except her absurd admiration for JO!!!!!
Sorry, but i don't get all this idolization for JO: she's just a normal kid (not GANDHI or MOTHER THERESA lol!)

:boxing::boxing::boxing::boxing::boxing::boxing::boxing::boxing:

Ironically Happy Days began with 4 main characters (Ritchie, Potsie, Mr. & Mrs. C.) and added more characters as the show went along. While Potsie was Nancied, he was never written off from the show. Warren Littlefield would have said "We got 10, 12 boys. It's too confusing. Get rid of some. I don't care who. Reduce the cast."

The Fonz wasn't even a main character in the first couple of seasons.

They must've been on SO around 2001

Ironically Happy Days began with 4 main characters (Ritchie, Potsie, Mr. & Mrs. C.) and added more characters as the show went along. While Potsie was Nancied, he was never written off from the show. Warren Littlefield would have said "We got 10, 12 boys. It's too confusing. Get rid of some. I don't care who. Reduce the cast."

Maybe someone overheard him, and that's how Chuck Cunningham got written out! :lol: "Pick four! Forget everybody else!" Richie, Potsie, Ralph, and Fonzie were the "kept boys".

They had Jo call Mrs. Garrett "Mrs. G." just like the Fonz called Marion Cunningham, "Mrs. C."

The nice thing about the first season cast was that they had a big diversity of girls. Later on, they tried to clone other girls to be another Jo.

They had Jo call Mrs. Garrett "Mrs. G." just like the Fonz called Marion Cunningham, "Mrs. C."

The nice thing about the first season cast was that they had a big diversity of girls. Later on, they tried to clone other girls to be another Jo.




I couldn't agree anymore with you 80s!!!:wave:

season 1 casts were all originals (no clones or copies of any sort) and it was a rather bad move for the writers to let them go, and no amount of JO could ever replace them: each one of those 'lost girls' had their own special personality.....

:bighug::bighug::bighug::bighug::bighug::bighug::bighug::bighug::bighug::bighug:

They had Jo call Mrs. Garrett "Mrs. G." just like the Fonz called Marion Cunningham, "Mrs. C."

Excellent point.


The nice thing about the first season cast was that they had a big diversity of girls. Later on, they tried to clone other girls to be another Jo.

Yeah, it really felt as though they were forgetting that what made Jo work was that she was different than the other girls. By creating a mini-me Jo with Kelly, they were destroying what had made Jo unique. Maybe this is what upset Nancy McKeon, and why Pamela felt unwelcome around her.

Jo could never be cloned, and the writers made Kelly so unlikable that they even ruined the cloning process.

Excellent point.



Yeah, it really felt as though they were forgetting that what made Jo work was that she was different than the other girls. By creating a mini-me Jo with Kelly, they were destroying what had made Jo unique. Maybe this is what upset Nancy McKeon, and why Pamela felt unwelcome around her.

Jo could never be cloned, and the writers made Kelly so unlikable that they even ruined the cloning process.




I think each of the girls were unique not just JO (unless you mean by unique that she came from a poor background?)

:wazzup:wazzup:wazzup:wazzup:wazzup:wazzup:wazzup:wazzup:wazzup:wazzup

I think each of the girls were unique not just JO (unless you mean by unique that she came from a poor background?)



All the Eastland girls were unique in their own ways; Jo was distinct in that her background was so far removed from the hallowed halls of Eastland. It wasn't just that she was poor. She had never heard of a cotillion. She didn't know what to do at a fancy dinner. She'd deck a guy if he asked her out. She was the exact opposite of the "Miss Manners" they were looking for at Eastland.

All the Eastland girls were unique in their own ways; Jo was distinct in that her background was so far removed from the hallowed halls of Eastland. It wasn't just that she was poor. She had never heard of a cotillion. She didn't know what to do at a fancy dinner. She'd deck a guy if he asked her out. She was the exact opposite of the "Miss Manners" they were looking for at Eastland.




Yep, she was indeed: i remember an episode in season 3, where they're all sitting at a fancy restaurant (i think it was when NATALIE's dad was having an affair) when JO shoes fall out of her feet and BLAIR orders her to put them back on, and not to eat her food with her fingers!!!!

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

I never understood this. Miko in s3 was obsessed with Jo, Alex in s4 was a little clone of Blair and Kelly in s5 was (again) obsessed with Jo. A good half of Jo's popularity among fans was the constant rivalry against Blair. I know they wanted to soften Jo at that point but, let's be honest, Kelly (and Alex before her) never had the "charisma" that Blair and Jo had. We prefer the original characters, not their clones :lol:

What about the Jo and Blair clones in New York, New York? Dina was such a clone of Blair, and Jesse was such a clone of Jo! I would even go as far as to say Boots St. Clair was a clone of Blair too.

What about the Jo and Blair clones in New York, New York? Dina was such a clone of Blair, and Jesse was such a clone of Jo! I would even go as far as to say Boots St. Clair was a clone of Blair too.

Good point, but I never felt like Jesse and Dina were truly clones. Let me explain. A clone would be a cheap rip-off of another character. A lazy way of writing.

Dina and Jesse were representations of Jo and Blair's old lives: what they might have become if they had stayed in Manhattan and the Bronx. But when Blair and Jo meet with their old friends, they're actually appalled at their friends' behavior, and their former friends are aghast at what they've become. Eastland has changed them: they are now far more well-rounded people. Jo has a bigger moral compass. Blair has no problem making food and being self-sufficient. The writers used these characters to contrast Blair and Jo with "what might have been". If they were clones, they were clones of B and J's earlier selves.

Boots was far more savage than Blair could ever be. When she pulled that stunt with the Gamma Gamma initiation, she proved that she could be cruel, and she never learns a lesson, unlike Blair.

(Also, can I point out it's a strange measure of how small and tight-knit the Hollywood film and television industry still was in the early 1980s that Alexa Kenin (who played Jesse in "New York, New York") was in Co-Ed Fever (which is where the Season 1 set came from), was in Little Darlings (which inspired "The New Girl" and featured Felice's sister Simone Schachter as well as Nicholas Coster who later played Blair's father), and was in Pretty in Pink (which starred Molly Ringwald). Talk about Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon! Maybe it should have been Six Degrees of Alexa Kenin!)

Good point, but I never felt like Jesse and Dina were truly clones. Let me explain. A clone would be a cheap rip-off of another character. A lazy way of writing.

Dina and Jesse were representations of Jo and Blair's old lives: what they might have become if they had stayed in Manhattan and the Bronx. But when Blair and Jo meet with their old friends, they're actually appalled at their friends' behavior, and their former friends are aghast at what they've become. Eastland has changed them: they are now far more well-rounded people. Jo has a bigger moral compass. Blair has no problem making food and being self-sufficient. The writers used these characters to contrast Blair and Jo with "what might have been". If they were clones, they were clones of B and J's earlier selves.

Boots was far more savage than Blair could ever be. When she pulled that stunt with the Gamma Gamma initiation, she proved that she could be cruel, and she never learns a lesson, unlike Blair.

What a perfect analysis!
Boots irritates me. Blair is funny but Boots is really terrible :lol:

I don't understand this constant comparison of BLAIR and BOOTS lol!!!

BLAIR was warmhearted, kind and loyal to friends (although snobbish and vain too).
BOOTS on the other hand was manipulative, superficial and she had no depth of any sort.....
DINAH wasn't much better either: she was spoiled,shallow and very prejudiced (she made that remark about how come 'Eastland' accepted girls like JO)
JESSIE was racist, (she judged the Latinos because they're mother tongue was Spanish and not English), aggressive and explosive too.

And yes, Retro is right: JESSE and DINAH were what might have become of JO and BLAIR, had MRS G not being in their lives to straightened them up (our 'feisty red haired' did wonders with those 2 rebellious girls lol!).

BOOTS, JESSIE and DINAH weren't that lucky though: they didn't have a MRS G to tell them right from wrong....

I said the same thing, Valentina! I agree with you. Blair can be snobbish but she's funny and loyal to her friends. We saw that in Double Standard and Ain't Miss Beholden with Jo and in Sex Symbol with Natalie. And Jo was loyal to Blair in Magnificent Obsession. Many of her lines are very funny (one of my favorites was in Double Standard when Mrs. Garrett said: "Blair, you don't think a boy would change schools, change countries just to take you to a dance?" and she replied "They have before" :lol::lol:). After all, she's a very positive character. On the other hand Boots was terrible :(:(

I said the same thing, Valentina! I agree with you. Blair can be snobbish but she's funny and loyal to her friends. We saw that in Double Standard and Ain't Miss Beholden with Jo and in Sex Symbol with Natalie. And Jo was loyal to Blair in Magnificent Obsession. Many of her lines are very funny (one of my favorites was in Double Standard when Mrs. Garrett said: "Blair, you don't think a boy would change schools, change countries just to take you to a dance?" and she replied "They have before" After all, she's a very positive character. On the other hand Boots was terrible (



Thank you FOL FAN ITA for seeing my point of view!:wave:

BLAIR was definitely self absorbed and sometimes mean, but MRS G was always there to make sure she redeems herself (like in the episodes 'Rough Housing' and 'Kids can be cruel') and in the end she always learned her lesson.... After all, she did have a heart of gold!

:bighug::bighug::bighug::bighug::bighug::bighug::bighug::bighug

BOOTSIE on the other hand never learned any lesson: she was just always looking for ways to win and manipulate (like in the episode where she pretends to be NATALIE's friend, publishing her journal behind her back and even changing the story). She definitely should have been sent to military school to straightened her up hee hee!

:horse::horse::horse::horse::horse::horse:

I don't understand this constant comparison of BLAIR and BOOTS lol!!!

BLAIR was warmhearted, kind and loyal to friends (although snobbish and vain too).
BOOTS on the other hand was manipulative, superficial and she had no depth of any sort.....
DINAH wasn't much better either: she was spoiled,shallow and very prejudiced (she made that remark about how come 'Eastland' accepted girls like JO)
JESSIE was racist, (she judged the Latinos because they're mother tongue was Spanish and not English), aggressive and explosive too.

And yes, Retro is right: JESSE and DINAH were what might have become of JO and BLAIR, had MRS G not being in their lives to straightened them up (our 'feisty red haired' did wonders with those 2 rebellious girls lol!).

BOOTS, JESSIE and DINAH weren't that lucky though: they didn't have a MRS G to tell them right from wrong....
What a perfect analysis!
Boots irritates me. Blair is funny but Boots is really terrible :lol:

Thanks, guys. Boots is much more like Blair as seen in "The Girls' School": shallow to the point of bragging about her "blue blood" and acting like a nasty person. Boots could have hung out with THAT Blair, as well as Mean Ole Margo and "The Group" (Tumpy, Emily, and Gail).

Kelly's obsession with Jo was super creepy. It was like an obsessive love. I don't think Miko was really obsessed with Jo. It was more like an intense like & fascination. Miko wasn't a lying, violent, trouble making twerp like Kelly. I didn't get that vibe from Miko at all.

Thanks, guys. Boots is much more like Blair as seen in "The Girls' School": shallow to the point of bragging about her "blue blood" and acting like a nasty person. Boots could have hung out with THAT Blair, as well as Mean Ole Margo and "The Group" (Tumpy, Emily, and Gail).



Ifjdksfhdskfskjdfskdjkfsdjdfgjdfgksdjfkgljdsflkdflkgdf;kg;fk;ldkfg;lkllljolkjdfkll;kldkfa;llfd;dlklafdaldkksdakjjkfk\dlfdskol

Kelly's obsession with Jo was super creepy. It was like an obsessive love. I don't think Miko was really obsessed with Jo. It was more like an intense like & fascination. Miko wasn't a lying, violent, trouble making twerp like Kelly. I didn't get that vibe from Miko at all.

Yes, Kelly was obsessed in a creepy way. Miko wasn't around long enough to become creepy. Yet she was still obsessed. Why? What was so special about Jo that made her fascinating to random sub-characters?

And of course Miko wasn't the lying, violent, trouble-making twerp that Kelly was. She was a good girl who simply wanted to dress like Jo and ride around on a motorcycle like Jo. Nothing Single White Female about that. ;)

Ifjdksfhdskfskjdfskdjkfsdjdfgjdfgksdjfkgljdsflkdflkgdf;kg;fk;ldkfg;lkllljolkjdfkll;kldkfa;llfd;dlklafdaldkksdakjjkfk\dlfdskol
?????!!!!!??????

:lol:

Yes, Kelly was obsessed in a creepy way. Miko wasn't around long enough to become creepy. Yet she was still obsessed. Why? What was so special about Jo that made her fascinating to random sub-characters?

And of course Miko wasn't the lying, violent, trouble-making twerp that Kelly was. She was a good girl who simply wanted to dress like Jo and ride around on a motorcycle like Jo. Nothing Single White Female about that. ;)

When you put it that way, I must rethink my position on Miko. As for Kelly, she was beyond manipulative and actually scary. I still say that Kelly wanted Jo for a lover. Kelly would be an abusive, controlling lover to anyone. I don't think Miko saw Jo that way although her fascination with Jo was concerning.

When you put it that way, I must rethink my position on Miko. As for Kelly, she was beyond manipulative and actually scary. I still say that Kelly wanted Jo for a lover. Kelly would be an abusive, controlling lover to anyone. I don't think Miko saw Jo that way although her fascination with Jo was concerning.

Yeah, I think Miko could have been salvaged, with some good writing. The writers could have given her her own personality traits, if the decision had been made to keep her on.

But as you say, Kelly was beyond manipulative, violent... The character became irredeemable.

Good point, but I never felt like Jesse and Dina were truly clones. Let me explain. A clone would be a cheap rip-off of another character. A lazy way of writing.

Dina and Jesse were representations of Jo and Blair's old lives: what they might have become if they had stayed in Manhattan and the Bronx. But when Blair and Jo meet with their old friends, they're actually appalled at their friends' behavior, and their former friends are aghast at what they've become. Eastland has changed them: they are now far more well-rounded people. Jo has a bigger moral compass. Blair has no problem making food and being self-sufficient. The writers used these characters to contrast Blair and Jo with "what might have been". If they were clones, they were clones of B and J's earlier selves.

Boots was far more savage than Blair could ever be. When she pulled that stunt with the Gamma Gamma initiation, she proved that she could be cruel, and she never learns a lesson, unlike Blair.

(Also, can I point out it's a strange measure of how small and tight-knit the Hollywood film and television industry still was in the early 1980s that Alexa Kenin (who played Jesse in "New York, New York") was in Co-Ed Fever (which is where the Season 1 set came from), was in Little Darlings (which inspired "The New Girl" and featured Felice's sister Simone Schachter as well as Nicholas Coster who later played Blair's father), and was in Pretty in Pink (which starred Molly Ringwald). Talk about Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon! Maybe it should have been Six Degrees of Alexa Kenin!)

Great analysis, RetroGuy2000. I never thought about it that way. I think I may need to re-watch the seasons 3-5 because it's been awhile since I've seen them, and I never noticed the intricacies in these characters that made them so different.

Also, I have to say, I loved the Boots St. Clair character. Even though she was kind of unlikeable, she was so cunning with her insults that made her somewhat likeable. Reminded me of Sue Ann Nivens from The Mary Tyler Moore Show.

Also, yeah, Kelly had an unhealthy relationship for Jo. Has anyone ever thought that deep down she was acting out because she was a closeted lesbian?

I don't think any of the writers made any of the characters gay or intended to (I don't think the words "gay" or "lesbian" were ever used on the show), but it's just a thought.

Great analysis, RetroGuy2000.

Oh, please just call me Retro; the Guy2000 is too long.


I never thought about it that way. I think I may need to re-watch the seasons 3-5 because it's been awhile since I've seen them, and I never noticed the intricacies in these characters that made them so different.I'm going to need to revisit those seasons, myself, fairly soon. I've seen several, recently, but out of context with their seasons as a whole.


Also, I have to say, I loved the Boots St. Clair character. Even though she was kind of unlikeable, she was so cunning with her insults that made her somewhat likeable. Reminded me of Sue Ann Nivens from The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Yes! Jami was very good at portraying a mean character. It's a shame they only used her for four episodes. They could have used her beyond Season 5 because Blair and Jo (and later Natalie) attended Langley. And even though Boots was clearly older than Blair and Jo, having already been ensconced in Gamma Gamma Gamma, she could have done a couple more seasons. She's the type of character you love to hate, which is the perfect antagonist for a TV series.


Also, yeah, Kelly had an unhealthy relationship for Jo. Has anyone ever thought that deep down she was acting out because she was a closeted lesbian?She could have been a lesbian, but why vandalize the store?


I don't think any of the writers made any of the characters gay or intended to (I don't think the words "gay" or "lesbian" were ever used on the show), but it's just a thought.As far as I'm aware, the word "lesbian" was used only once: in the "Best Sister" episodes, when Jo quickly decides to become a nun, and then quickly decides not to. Meanwhile, Blair magically has a half-sister, and then apparently magically decides she doesn't have a half-sister, as she's never spoken of again. In the episode, Blair's half-sister Meg says she was accused by her family of being a lesbian because she wanted to become a nun.

There are so many continuity issues with these two episodes that some fans here don't even consider them part of the FOL canon: where does Blair's sudden half-sister come from, and where does she disappear to? Why does Jo decide to become a nun when she doesn't previously seem very religious, and isn't in later seasons, either? And how is it that Jo punches like a girl? "Even Sue Ann, in her days of glory" could throw a better left hook than Jo! :lol:

When they wanted to indicate a character was gay/lesbian, because it was a show with a mainly teenage audience in the 1970s and 1980s, they tiptoed around with terms like "strange" and "not normal". So Cindy, in the very first episode, wonders if she's "not normal" rather than "a lesbian". This was pretty daring for 1979 network TV!

It's possible that some of the writers did want to explore more issues of sexuality, and they might have, since the show started off with a hard-hitting episode about a teenager questioning her sexuality. However, in November 1980, Ronald Reagan became president. The country, including the Big Three Television Networks, subtly shifted to the right: Nancy Reagan appeared at Metromedia Square (where FOL was taped) to do an anti-drug episode on Diff'rent Strokes, and carry the message of conservatism on national TV. The Moral Majority, and later the Media Research Center, pressed for more conservative TV shows and campaigned for the removal of "immorality" on television. Norman Lear eventually sold his production companies to global conglomerate Coca-Cola, and thus ended the reign of one of the most progressive production companies in the United States.

FOL was still almost completely about female relationships, and it could be argued (and has been, extensively, on the L Chat forum (https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/l_anon/nancy-mckeon-lisa-whelchel-facts-of-life-jo-blair--t3671289.html?sid=a275540220eb05ce9e1bd03147505f17)) that there was a subtle or even blatant lesbian undertone to the relationship between Blair and Jo, but if the writers intended Blair and Jo to be lesbians, it remained subtextual.

Certainly, though, Jo and her butch-ness were an undeniable part of what made the show appealing for many 1980s girls who were just discovering their sexuality.

Pamela frequented gay bars and drag clubs in the late 1980s, and Geri later came out as gay, so there definitely were some pro-lesbian feelings on the set from the auxiliary cast, but Lisa, at that time, was doing appearances on the PTL Club with Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, and Nancy and Kim were also pretty hard-core Christians in an era when many Christian churches were openly condemning gays. I don't think it would have been possible to have a lesbian storyline on that show at that time. Lisa wouldn't even appear in an episode where a character had sex!

I think Blair and Meg were not related. Meg was a product of different parents, but became a sister to Blair from what I recall that episode (one that I like a lot more than some people).

Lisa became more friendly to the LGBT community after her divorce from her husband and the church she grew up with. Molly character in Riverdale is now involved in a lesbian relationship.

I wonder how many lesbians had a crush on Cindy or Julie Anne?

Thanks, guys. Boots is much more like Blair as seen in "The Girls' School": shallow to the point of bragging about her "blue blood" and acting like a nasty person. Boots could have hung out with THAT Blair, as well as Mean Ole Margo and "The Group" (Tumpy, Emily, and Gail).




I still don't see how BLAIR in the Pilot was anything like BOOTSIE! (sorry Retro but i'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one).

BLAIR was just a rebel without a cause back then: a grumpy bad behaved kid with no manners, but also a loner (she only befriended SUE ANN later on the first FOL episode) craving for the attention no one was giving her, and the way she was getting it, was by making sneaky remarks (like on the 'true blood' thing she said to SUE ANN).
BLAIR would nevermanipulate anyone though (like BOOTSIE for instance).

The same goes for TUMPY and her friends: they just wanted to fit in with the crowd, and the only way they knew how to be popular was to show off my smoking Marijuana and inviting the cool kids, but they weren't mean or conniving (unlike BOOTSIE and MARGO).

Now MARGO was definitely mean and cruel just for the sake of it: she insulted JO by treating her like the help and saying nasty things about her mother.

So you see, i would never put BLAIR (even during the Pilot 'Girls school') in the same category as BOOTSIE and MARGO: our 'girl with the golden heart' was just a spoiled and grumpy 15 year old then, and a very lonely one....

Now i know you're going to say she insulted MRS G, but again i am positive it was her way of getting attention, and also because she had been caught doing something she shouldn't have (for instance smoking) by an adult.

I don't know why i'm the only one who sees that deep down she was a good person even then, but like they say: each of us perceive things differently?

:guitar::guitar::guitar::guitar::guitar::guitar::guitar::guitar::guitar::guitar:

?????!!!!!??????

:lol:



Those incomprehensible letters i sent last night was an accident oops!

I was trying to write but my laptop has a problem: when it gets too hot i am unable to write without any space (i guess it's kind of old and used) which is why i normally try to type anything important fast before it goes weird.....

PS: do you have any suggestions on how to fix it? (my dad suggested buying a new keyboard)????

:typing::typing::typing::typing::typing::typing::typing::typing::typing::typing:

I wonder how many lesbians had a crush on Cindy or Julie Anne?

Quite a few, but not as many as Jo, based on the L-Chat forum thread I linked to, above! That thread has hundreds of pages, almost all focused on Jo (and a sexual relationship with Blair).

Those incomprehensible letters i sent last night was an accident oops!

I was trying to write but my laptop has a problem: when it gets too hot i am unable to write without any space (i guess it's kind of old and used) which is why i normally try to type anything important fast before it goes weird.....

PS: do you have any suggestions on how to fix it? (my dad suggested buying a new keyboard)????

:typing::typing::typing::typing::typing::typing::typing::typing::typing::typing:

If the problem really is that the laptop is getting too hot, you should buy a laptop cooling unit (https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Computers-Accessories-Laptop-Cooling-Pads-External-Fans/zgbs/pc/2243862011). They just sit under the laptop and keep it cool.

I still don't see how BLAIR in the Pilot was anything like BOOTSIE! (sorry Retro but i'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one).

BLAIR was just a rebel without a cause back then: a grumpy bad behaved kid with no manners, but also a loner (she only befriended SUE ANN later on the first FOL episode) craving for the attention no one was giving her, and the way she was getting it, was by making sneaky remarks (like on the 'true blood' thing she said to SUE ANN).
BLAIR would nevermanipulate anyone though (like BOOTSIE for instance).

The same goes for TUMPY and her friends: they just wanted to fit in with the crowd, and the only way they knew how to be popular was to show off my smoking Marijuana and inviting the cool kids, but they weren't mean or conniving (unlike BOOTSIE and MARGO).

Now MARGO was definitely mean and cruel just for the sake of it: she insulted JO by treating her like the help and saying nasty things about her mother.

So you see, i would never put BLAIR (even during the Pilot 'Girls school') in the same category as BOOTSIE and MARGO: our 'girl with the golden heart' was just a spoiled and grumpy 15 year old then, and a very lonely one....

Now i know you're going to say she insulted MRS G, but again i am positive it was her way of getting attention, and also because she had been caught doing something she shouldn't have (for instance smoking) by an adult.

I don't know why i'm the only one who sees that deep down she was a good person even then, but like they say: each of us perceive things differently?

:guitar::guitar::guitar::guitar::guitar::guitar::guitar::guitar::guitar::guitar:

Always great to get more perspectives!

To me, "spoiled and grumpy" doesn't really equate to "You know, in my home, housekeepers know their place" or "How many times have you stuck yourself, dummy?" Nancy says it herself: Blair isn't just being "grumpy"; she's being nasty.

Like you, I believe that deep down, Blair was a good person, even then. But she needed Mrs. Garrett to help help dig out that better Blair, and Mrs. Garrett needed a strong shovel to do it! Mrs. Garrett must have spent quite a bit of time working with Blair between the pilot and Season One, because by "Rough Housing", even when Blair is being "rotten" (as she herself says), she can admit that she was wrong... and rotten. But if Blair can admit she acted rotten, we should be able to do so, as well.

If the problem really is that the laptop is getting too hot, you should buy a laptop cooling unit (https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Computers-Accessories-Laptop-Cooling-Pads-External-Fans/zgbs/pc/2243862011). They just sit under the laptop and keep it cool.




Actually, now i'm not so sure it is the laptop that's too hot: the rooter or the cable extension (that long adapter that comes with the laptop and you plug in) that's getting reallyhot sometimes.... Normally i just switch off the laptop for half and hour, and then switch it back on.

:typing::typing::typing::typing::typing::typing::typing::typing::typing::typing:

Always great to get more perspectives!

To me, "spoiled and grumpy" doesn't really equate to "You know, in my home, housekeepers know their place" or "How many times have you stuck yourself, dummy?" Nancy says it herself: Blair isn't just being "grumpy"; she's being nasty.

Like you, I believe that deep down, Blair was a good person, even then. But she needed Mrs. Garrett to help help dig out that better Blair, and Mrs. Garrett needed a strong shovel to do it! Mrs. Garrett must have spent quite a bit of time working with Blair between the pilot and Season One, because by "Rough Housing", even when Blair is being "rotten" (as she herself says), she can admit that she was wrong... and rotten. But if Blair can admit she acted rotten, we should be able to do so, as well.



That was beautifully said Retro and i'm glad to see you and i are on the same wavelength!!!:wave:

MRS G had a way of making BLAIR feel guilty when she misbehaved (like on 'Rough Housing' when she puts her to shame) and it only takes a strong personality to handle someone naughty/naughty without a cause (for instance BLAIR): our 'feisty red haired' was the only one able to see past her shallow facade, and to dig the best out of her!
And yes: BLAIR definitely did a lot of growing while MRS G was around to guide her, and she was also the most lectured out of the girls (even more than JO when she was a rebel).

:cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers::cheers:

For those of you who have Hallmark Drama, Happy Days will be coming on Saturday, October 24.

There are certainly some scary stalkerish lesbians on L Chat. Some of them can't seem to separate the characters from the actresses and some just can't accept Lisa and Nancy M. for who they are. Heterosexual women.

There are certainly some scary stalkerish lesbians on L Chat. Some of them can't seem to separate the characters from the actresses and some just can't accept Lisa and Nancy M. for who they are. Heterosexual women.


As long as the ladies there keep it in those threads, I don't think it will do any harm. But of course there is the chance of spillage into other areas.

I was thinking, tonight, about the reason there never were Tootie/Natalie clones. I still don't understand quite why that was the case.

I was thinking, tonight, about the reason there never were Tootie/Natalie clones. I still don't understand quite why that was the case.


The answer is quite obvious: BLAIR and JO were the main ones, whereas TOOTIE and NAT came as second....

popcorn:popcorn:popcorn:popcorn:popcorn:popcorn:popcorn:popcorn:popcorn:popcorn:

I was thinking, tonight, about the reason there never were Tootie/Natalie clones. I still don't understand quite why that was the case.

I thought Cheryl from "Starstruck" was a good clone of Tootie. Any of her groupies were like Tootie clones.

I'm drawing a blank on a Natalie clone.

I thought Cheryl from "Starstruck" was a good clone of Tootie. Any of her groupies were like Tootie clones.

I'm drawing a blank on a Natalie clone.

Okay, I can get behind Cheryl from Starstruck being a Tootie clone. I can see that.

The answer is quite obvious: BLAIR and JO were the main ones, whereas TOOTIE and NAT came as second....


But Nat and Toot appear in more than 200 episodes. With the sheer number of Blair and Jo clones, we should have had a number of Natalie and Tootie Juniors running around, too.

Since this thread mentions Happy Days, I’ll put this here.

You guys seen this one of Lisa and Erin Moran? I’m laying 2-1 odds you have.

https://i.imged.com/lisa-whelchel-and-erin-moran-busty-circus-of-the-stars-8x10-photo-55.jpg

Since this thread mentions Happy Days, I’ll put this here.

You guys seen this one of Lisa and Erin Moran? I’m laying 2-1 odds you have.



I had not. Thanks for sharing, Opus.

Lisa, in that tiara, looks very much like a Harvest Queen.

Since this thread mentions Happy Days, I’ll put this here.

You guys seen this one of Lisa and Erin Moran? I’m laying 2-1 odds you have.

https://i.imged.com/lisa-whelchel-and-erin-moran-busty-circus-of-the-stars-8x10-photo-55.jpg

The movie is on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLmQBLqC9Tg

BLAIR was born to be a 'Harvest queen!'