He could have been lurking outside and peeking in the windows. It would have been right in character, given how obsessed he was with this group of girls when he was headmaster.

Plus John Lawlor has ties with Cloris Leachman.

I'd hope they'd give him a better role than peeping tom. :lol:

I would have liked to have seen him, but not at the expense of seeing the Lost Girls less. So maybe they should have done a two-parter.

He wouldn't have had a great role but I would have liked to see him. The other characters never mentioned him, like if he never existed

They could have done an inside joke between Beverly Ann and Mr. Bradley like Beverly Ann saying "Have we met before? You look familiar." Mr. Bradley then could say "No we never met before, but I do have a twin brother who is a politician".

I agree that MR Bradley was never mentioned: as if he never existed lol!
In my opinion he was the best headmaster ever and should have never left!

I'd hope they'd give him a better role than peeping tom. :lol:

I would have liked to have seen him, but not at the expense of seeing the Lost Girls less. So maybe they should have done a two-parter.

Agreed. They could have written it so that Nancy was pregnant with his baby instead of Roger’s. And it would have caused jealousy in Blair, since Nancy was now with “Steven.”

Agreed. They could have written it so that Nancy was pregnant with his baby instead of Roger’s. And it would have caused jealousy in Blair, since Nancy was now with “Steven.”

:eek::lol::eek::lol:

They could have done an inside joke between Beverly Ann and Mr. Bradley like Beverly Ann saying "Have we met before? You look familiar." Mr. Bradley then could say "No we never met before, but I do have a twin brother who is a politician".

Clever! Did he play a politician somewhere?

Clever! Did he play a politician somewhere?

John Lawlor played a San Francisco politician on the second season of Chloris Leachman's 70s show Alice. His character in that show was almost the same as Mr. Bradley.

Idk how well he would fit at a reunion slumber party :lol:

John Lawlor played a San Francisco politician on the second season of Chloris Leachman's 70s show Alice. His character in that show was almost the same as Mr. Bradley.

You mean Phyllis? Yeah, that'd be a nice reference.

You mean Phyllis? Yeah, that'd be a nice reference.

Yes, I met Phyllis. John Lawlor also appeared on the show Alice playing an FBI agent before he was on the Facts of Life.

In the episode that the writers wrote? No, the whole episode was just a big ol' mess. You'd have to rewrite the whole episode to include Mr. Bradley, which I wouldn't have advised, given how this episode was a complete trainwreck already. Cue my rant...

I didn't like this episode for a few reasons (in no particular order):

1) I didn't like how they presented season 1's cast in their present life
2) The unnecessary clip show flashbacks
3) They weren't inclusive of Jo and were so snobby to her (ahem, the "you had to be there" line)
4) The episode was rating's bait

Let's go to how they handled the season 1 characters in the present day. Judging by how these writers handled this episode and how bad it was and in response to a previous comment that there should have been a 2-parter, well, um, I think a 2-parter may have even been worse. The writers just didn't do justice to the season 1 characters. They handled eating disorders and premarital sex so poorly. Because the show was so conservative at this time, they handled Nancy sharing the news that she had a baby out of wedlock as a cataclysmic event when it really wasn't that big of a deal (well, at least in the present day). Oh, big deal, Nancy wouldn't start her practice until her mid-30s. They could've told her that someone could adopt the baby, but I doubt that they would've suggested an abortion. When Cindy mentioned her eating disorder, no one seemed concerned at all, and Tootie even laughed at it. Cue the awkward and needless segue to the "Dieting" episode. Um, OK? Sue Ann's story was totally unbelievable and the efforts to make Jo and Sue Ann get along were oh so disingenuous. It seems Jo's presence was hinged only by Sue Ann's secret when it should have been hinged on the memories that they all shared in their time together. Jo should have been part of the PJ party too. Then the writer's had Jo cover-up for Sue Ann's lie at the end of the episode even though Sue Ann was so snotty to her the whole darn episode. It just didn't make any sense. What was even the purpose of that plot? It seemed like a poor attempt to keep Jo as a part of the plot in this episode.

Then let's talk about the disrespect they showed to Jo. The writers were so disrespectful to Jo and the cast's history together, that I doubt any effort to heal the wounds and mentioning "other" season 1 cast members or including more season 1 cast members would've made up for the disrespect that the writers had for the season 1 cast and the disrespect they showed for Jo. The season 1 girls acted as they had never seen her before when we all knew they had. Sue Ann was needlessly snotty to Jo ("you had to be there" line). Blair made a feeble attempt saying to Jo that they don't mean to leave her out, but it didn't feel genuine to me. Judging how they handled the interaction with Jo, I think adding more season 1 cast members into the mix would've resulted in an episode that would be even less inclusive of Jo, or in a complete absence of Jo at all, which wouldn't have been a good thing. It was clear that "Jo" was just a bystander in that episode, and the writers really didn't make a real concentrated or genuine effort to be inclusive of her. There should have been more inclusivity to Jo because she was a part of season 1's casts lives, but once again, the whole episode acted like that wasn't the case. Beverly Ann even said to Jo that she "had no memories of them all." Uh, WTF? Beverly Ann wasn't even there so how the hell would she even know? And yes, if you were a loyal fan of the show, you'd know that she did have memories of the season 1 cast. Did the writers think we were stupid or did they just not care? Probably both.

The whole episode just felt forced and fake, and it was "nice" of them to bring them back, but yeah, the whole episode was just a half-baked attempt and felt like it was rating's bait than a genuine effort to being inclusive again to the season 1 cast.

Mr. Bradley wasn't worthy enough of a character to come back, in my opinion (I know people will debate me on this and be furious that I said this). He was far too creepy in season 1 and by season 8, he'd probably be a child predator or sex offender (I know this is quite the thing to say, but let's be real here, it's a possibility). I'm glad he got the Chuck Cunningham syndrome. If anything this episode should have been more mindful of Jo, than anyone else from the season 1 class, IMHO. I know it was the season 1 cast's episode, but they could have at least tied in Jo better. The whole episode was just a complete trainwreck.

The episode could've used a writing overhaul.

In the episode that the writers wrote? No, the whole episode was just a big ol' mess. You'd have to rewrite the whole episode to include Mr. Bradley, which I wouldn't have advised, given how this episode was a complete trainwreck already. Cue my rant...

You obviously feel very strongly, so I want to mention I only partially disagree.


I didn't like this episode for a few reasons (in no particular order):

1) I didn't like how they presented season 1's cast in their present life

But what was wrong about how they presented the cast in their present life?


2) The unnecessary clip show flashbacks

Why were the flashbacks unnecessary? We hadn't seen these characters in five years, and if ever there was a time to use a flashback, it would be to remind viewers who these characters were, what had happened, and how close these girls had been, back in the day. To me, this is far more legitimate of a reason for a flashback sequence than most of the times flashbacks were used on the series.

We see flashbacks, for example, throughout Graduation. But the clips they showed were from episodes during the last two seasons.


3) They weren't inclusive of Jo and were so snobby to her (ahem, the "you had to be there" line)

I got the feeling Jo's hackles were raised by Tootie excluding her, at the beginning. That had nothing to do with how the Lost Girls treated Jo. That was a mistake Tootie made, which made Jo feel uncomfortable and out of place.

Jo totally overreacted to Sue Ann's comment "You had to be there". Finishing Sue Ann's comment, it would be, "You had to be there to understand why we find it funny", not "You weren't there, so butt out." Jo clearly took the comment as a slam, but I don't think Sue Ann meant it that way.

In fact, much has been made of Sue Ann being kinda snobby and lying, but the thing is... she wanted to impress the girls, and she was at a reunion. She did the exact same thing Beverly Ann did, but no-one takes BA to task for lying about her career. Only Sue Ann receives criticism.


4) The episode was rating's bait

The Reelz documentary says the episode had a ratings spike, but I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Wouldn't you want the return of old characters to bring in ratings?


Let's go to how they handled the season 1 characters in the present day. Judging by how these writers handled this episode and how bad it was and in response to a previous comment that there should have been a 2-parter, well, um, I think a 2-parter may have even been worse. The writers just didn't do justice to the season 1 characters. They handled eating disorders and premarital sex so poorly.

But with 44 minutes instead of 22, they could have fleshed out these struggles much more. We could have seen sympathy given to Cindy. We could have seen the ramifications of Nancy's worries about motherhood.


Because the show was so conservative at this time, they handled Nancy sharing the news that she had a baby out of wedlock as a cataclysmic event when it really wasn't that big of a deal (well, at least in the present day).

I think even in the present day, it's definitely something that should be done with caution, and with careful consideration.


Oh, big deal, Nancy wouldn't start her practice until her mid-30s. They could've told her that someone could adopt the baby, but I doubt that they would've suggested an abortion.

OMG, no. This show had skewed way conservative in the later years. Lisa would have boycotted the episode.

Sue Ann's story was totally unbelievable and the efforts to make Jo and Sue Ann get along were oh so disingenuous. It seems Jo's presence was hinged only by Sue Ann's secret when it should have been hinged on the memories that they all shared in their time together. Jo should have been part of the PJ party too. Then the writer's had Jo cover-up for Sue Ann's lie at the end of the episode even though Sue Ann was so snotty to her the whole darn episode. It just didn't make any sense. What was even the purpose of that plot? It seemed like a poor attempt to keep Jo as a part of the plot in this episode.

I felt like they showed how Jo still had lingering feelings of being an outsider, but Jo's years among her friends had strengthened her to the point where she could be the bigger woman, and cover for someone who was clearly struggling with self-esteem issues.

And we see, throughout the seasons, that Sue Ann does struggle with self-esteem. To me, this felt very genuine.


Then let's talk about the disrespect they showed to Jo. The writers were so disrespectful to Jo and the cast's history together, that I doubt any effort to heal the wounds and mentioning "other" season 1 cast members or including more season 1 cast members would've made up for the disrespect that the writers had for the season 1 cast and the disrespect they showed for Jo. The season 1 girls acted as they had never seen her before when we all knew they had.

Well, it was Beverly Ann who claimed they didn't know Jo. Jo doesn't say this. In fact, Tootie says, "And you remember Jo." It's clear they knew each other, but were never close.


Mr. Bradley wasn't worthy enough of a character to come back, in my opinion (I know people will debate me on this and be furious that I said this).

I'm not furious. He's my second-favorite Eastland headmaster, but I can see where he's irritating to some viewers. He was always meant to be an antagonist for Mrs. Garrett, who is the heroine.


He was far too creepy in season 1 and by season 8, he'd probably be a child predator or sex offender (I know this is quite the thing to say, but let's be real here, it's a possibility).

I think he was supposed to be more "befuddled" than "sex offender". :lol:

Anyway, as always, I enjoyed reading your rant! :wave:

In the episode that the writers wrote? No, the whole episode was just a big ol' mess. You'd have to rewrite the whole episode to include Mr. Bradley, which I wouldn't have advised, given how this episode was a complete trainwreck already. Cue my rant...

I didn't like this episode for a few reasons (in no particular order):

1) I didn't like how they presented season 1's cast in their present life
2) The unnecessary clip show flashbacks
3) They weren't inclusive of Jo and were so snobby to her (ahem, the "you had to be there" line)
4) The episode was rating's bait

Let's go to how they handled the season 1 characters in the present day. Judging by how these writers handled this episode and how bad it was and in response to a previous comment that there should have been a 2-parter, well, um, I think a 2-parter may have even been worse. The writers just didn't do justice to the season 1 characters. They handled eating disorders and premarital sex so poorly. Because the show was so conservative at this time, they handled Nancy sharing the news that she had a baby out of wedlock as a cataclysmic event when it really wasn't that big of a deal (well, at least in the present day). Oh, big deal, Nancy wouldn't start her practice until her mid-30s. They could've told her that someone could adopt the baby, but I doubt that they would've suggested an abortion. When Cindy mentioned her eating disorder, no one seemed concerned at all, and Tootie even laughed at it. Cue the awkward and needless segue to the "Dieting" episode. Um, OK? Sue Ann's story was totally unbelievable and the efforts to make Jo and Sue Ann get along were oh so disingenuous. It seems Jo's presence was hinged only by Sue Ann's secret when it should have been hinged on the memories that they all shared in their time together. Jo should have been part of the PJ party too. Then the writer's had Jo cover-up for Sue Ann's lie at the end of the episode even though Sue Ann was so snotty to her the whole darn episode. It just didn't make any sense. What was even the purpose of that plot? It seemed like a poor attempt to keep Jo as a part of the plot in this episode.

Then let's talk about the disrespect they showed to Jo. The writers were so disrespectful to Jo and the cast's history together, that I doubt any effort to heal the wounds and mentioning "other" season 1 cast members or including more season 1 cast members would've made up for the disrespect that the writers had for the season 1 cast and the disrespect they showed for Jo. The season 1 girls acted as they had never seen her before when we all knew they had. Sue Ann was needlessly snotty to Jo ("you had to be there" line). Blair made a feeble attempt saying to Jo that they don't mean to leave her out, but it didn't feel genuine to me. Judging how they handled the interaction with Jo, I think adding more season 1 cast members into the mix would've resulted in an episode that would be even less inclusive of Jo, or in a complete absence of Jo at all, which wouldn't have been a good thing. It was clear that "Jo" was just a bystander in that episode, and the writers really didn't make a real concentrated or genuine effort to be inclusive of her. There should have been more inclusivity to Jo because she was a part of season 1's casts lives, but once again, the whole episode acted like that wasn't the case. Beverly Ann even said to Jo that she "had no memories of them all." Uh, WTF? Beverly Ann wasn't even there so how the hell would she even know? And yes, if you were a loyal fan of the show, you'd know that she did have memories of the season 1 cast. Did the writers think we were stupid or did they just not care? Probably both.

The whole episode just felt forced and fake, and it was "nice" of them to bring them back, but yeah, the whole episode was just a half-baked attempt and felt like it was rating's bait than a genuine effort to being inclusive again to the season 1 cast.

Mr. Bradley wasn't worthy enough of a character to come back, in my opinion (I know people will debate me on this and be furious that I said this). He was far too creepy in season 1 and by season 8, he'd probably be a child predator or sex offender (I know this is quite the thing to say, but let's be real here, it's a possibility). I'm glad he got the Chuck Cunningham syndrome. If anything this episode should have been more mindful of Jo, than anyone else from the season 1 class, IMHO. I know it was the season 1 cast's episode, but they could have at least tied in Jo better. The whole episode was just a complete trainwreck.

The episode could've used a writing overhaul.

They should completely left out the Jo feel being left out scenario. It took away from the Cindy story line of how she transformed from tomboy to cover model. They should have included Jo in the group (not the Helen Hunt 'The Group'). Jo should have been invited to Nancy O's and Roger's wedding too.

The Sue Ann character was insecure during her time on the Facts of Life, but here she becomes a snob. She also said it was OK for couples to live together without being married while she was the family values girl in Season 1.

I liked the flashbacks, but the actresses seemed a little uncomfortable discussing the Molly situation. On the show, it sounded like she cut off all contact with her Eastland housemates and I think it was the same in real life as well. None of them ever really talked honestly about how they felt about Molly's success in life at that time.

They should completely left out the Jo feel being left out scenario.

I disagree. The biggest clashes in Season 1 are between Blair and Sue Ann. The biggest clashes in Season 2 are between Blair and Jo. Putting Jo and Sue Ann together should have resulted in clashes: these were ladies with strong opinions, and who both wanted respect. To me, having the head-to-head banter between Sue Ann and Jo was perfect.


It took away from the Cindy story line of how she transformed from tomboy to cover model. They should have included Jo in the group (not the Helen Hunt 'The Group'). Jo should have been invited to Nancy O's and Roger's wedding too.

I hope she was!


The Sue Ann character was insecure during her time on the Facts of Life, but here she becomes a snob.

She's overcompensating because she wants to impress her old friends. She did the same in "Dope". "Dieting", too, now that I think about it. Sue Ann was always very competitive.


She also said it was OK for couples to live together without being married while she was the family values girl in Season 1.

She was comforting her old friend. This feels like something Sue Ann might do.


I liked the flashbacks, but the actresses seemed a little uncomfortable discussing the Molly situation. On the show, it sounded like she cut off all contact with her Eastland housemates and I think it was the same in real life as well.

I do believe Molly had moved on, at that point. Remember, just a year before this episode, Molly had done an interview where she stated that her sole guest appearance on FOL was her "worst job ever" and was "humiliating".

I agree that MR Bradley was never mentioned: as if he never existed lol!
In my opinion he was the best headmaster ever and should have never left!

I agree! I would have kept Mr. Bradley on a recurring basis for the remaining seasons at Eastland. He was the only headmaster that really showed affection for the girls. He wasn't a character for an appearence in every episode, more on a recurring role like Mr. Parker

In the episode that the writers wrote? No, the whole episode was just a big ol' mess. You'd have to rewrite the whole episode to include Mr. Bradley, which I wouldn't have advised, given how this episode was a complete trainwreck already. Cue my rant...

I didn't like this episode for a few reasons (in no particular order):

1) I didn't like how they presented season 1's cast in their present life
2) The unnecessary clip show flashbacks
3) They weren't inclusive of Jo and were so snobby to her (ahem, the "you had to be there" line)
4) The episode was rating's bait

Let's go to how they handled the season 1 characters in the present day. Judging by how these writers handled this episode and how bad it was and in response to a previous comment that there should have been a 2-parter, well, um, I think a 2-parter may have even been worse. The writers just didn't do justice to the season 1 characters. They handled eating disorders and premarital sex so poorly. Because the show was so conservative at this time, they handled Nancy sharing the news that she had a baby out of wedlock as a cataclysmic event when it really wasn't that big of a deal (well, at least in the present day). Oh, big deal, Nancy wouldn't start her practice until her mid-30s. They could've told her that someone could adopt the baby, but I doubt that they would've suggested an abortion. When Cindy mentioned her eating disorder, no one seemed concerned at all, and Tootie even laughed at it. Cue the awkward and needless segue to the "Dieting" episode. Um, OK? Sue Ann's story was totally unbelievable and the efforts to make Jo and Sue Ann get along were oh so disingenuous. It seems Jo's presence was hinged only by Sue Ann's secret when it should have been hinged on the memories that they all shared in their time together. Jo should have been part of the PJ party too. Then the writer's had Jo cover-up for Sue Ann's lie at the end of the episode even though Sue Ann was so snotty to her the whole darn episode. It just didn't make any sense. What was even the purpose of that plot? It seemed like a poor attempt to keep Jo as a part of the plot in this episode.

Then let's talk about the disrespect they showed to Jo. The writers were so disrespectful to Jo and the cast's history together, that I doubt any effort to heal the wounds and mentioning "other" season 1 cast members or including more season 1 cast members would've made up for the disrespect that the writers had for the season 1 cast and the disrespect they showed for Jo. The season 1 girls acted as they had never seen her before when we all knew they had. Sue Ann was needlessly snotty to Jo ("you had to be there" line). Blair made a feeble attempt saying to Jo that they don't mean to leave her out, but it didn't feel genuine to me. Judging how they handled the interaction with Jo, I think adding more season 1 cast members into the mix would've resulted in an episode that would be even less inclusive of Jo, or in a complete absence of Jo at all, which wouldn't have been a good thing. It was clear that "Jo" was just a bystander in that episode, and the writers really didn't make a real concentrated or genuine effort to be inclusive of her. There should have been more inclusivity to Jo because she was a part of season 1's casts lives, but once again, the whole episode acted like that wasn't the case. Beverly Ann even said to Jo that she "had no memories of them all." Uh, WTF? Beverly Ann wasn't even there so how the hell would she even know? And yes, if you were a loyal fan of the show, you'd know that she did have memories of the season 1 cast. Did the writers think we were stupid or did they just not care? Probably both.

The whole episode just felt forced and fake, and it was "nice" of them to bring them back, but yeah, the whole episode was just a half-baked attempt and felt like it was rating's bait than a genuine effort to being inclusive again to the season 1 cast.

Mr. Bradley wasn't worthy enough of a character to come back, in my opinion (I know people will debate me on this and be furious that I said this). He was far too creepy in season 1 and by season 8, he'd probably be a child predator or sex offender (I know this is quite the thing to say, but let's be real here, it's a possibility). I'm glad he got the Chuck Cunningham syndrome. If anything this episode should have been more mindful of Jo, than anyone else from the season 1 class, IMHO. I know it was the season 1 cast's episode, but they could have at least tied in Jo better. The whole episode was just a complete trainwreck.

The episode could've used a writing overhaul.

I agree with you on several things. I don't like the way Sue Ann treats Jo in that episode, she's very "snobbish" and out of character if you ask me. The Sue Ann of 1979 wouldn't have acted this way. And Jo was there! The Lost Girls appeared on the show from 79 to 81, Jo came on board during Fall 1980, they even interacted in the cafeteria. The whole point of "You had to be there" was a huge plot hole. If I was one of the writers, I would have given Jo's role to Beverly Ann. Something like "All of us shared good moments, you had to be there", and Bev feels unwanted, a similar plot of that Christmas episode in season 9, I don't remember its title.

About Mr. Bradley, I have already said in a previous comment he wouldn't have had a great role in the episode, we never saw him again after season 1. I don't think he was creepy, more "intrusive". But on several occasions he showed that he had affection for the girls, for example in Flash Flood, Adoption and Molly's Holiday. On other episodes he became obsessed with something (I.Q, The Facts of Love, Running). I'm glad they gave less screen time to Harris and Parker in the following seasons. Anyway, I would have kept Bradley on a recurring basis. I don't understand why they fired John Lawlor only to cast another actor for the same role...

Jo totally overreacted to Sue Ann's comment "You had to be there". Finishing Sue Ann's comment, it would be, "You had to be there to understand why we find it funny", not "You weren't there, so butt out." Jo clearly took the comment as a slam, but I don't think Sue Ann meant it that way.

In fact, much has been made of Sue Ann being kinda snobby and lying, but the thing is... she wanted to impress the girls, and she was at a reunion. She did the exact same thing Beverly Ann did, but no-one takes BA to task for lying about her career. Only Sue Ann receives criticism.


:clap Thank you! I completely agree!!!!

They could have done the “Jo feels left out” subplot without pretending that the Lost Girls didn’t really know her.

[duplicate post]

They could have done the “Jo feels left out” subplot without pretending that the Lost Girls didn’t really know her.

But did they know her, really? I mean, one afternoon, they licked stamps with her. And they had a Journalism class with her.

But Sue Ann, Blair, Nancy, Tootie, and Molly shared a dorm together for two years, and Cindy and Natalie for one. You really get to know your dorm building mates in a way you don't just in a class.

The on-air time that the Lost Girls had, speaking with Jo, was under 10 minutes during two seasons (seven episodes). We know Jo would have occasionally seen them in class, and at the cafeteria. But as far as I can recall, Nancy and Jo only hung out together once, at Cooper's Rock, with a bunch of other students from Eastland and Stone Military Academy.

I agree with you, Retro. But the “Little Chill” had lines like “So, this is the famous Jo.” That’s not something you say about someone you occasionally saw in school and had classes with.

But did they know her, really? I mean, one afternoon, they licked stamps with her. And they had a Journalism class with her.

But Sue Ann, Blair, Nancy, Tootie, and Molly shared a dorm together for two years, and Cindy and Natalie for one. You really get to know your dorm building mates in a way you don't just in a class.

The on-air time that the Lost Girls had, speaking with Jo, was under 10 minutes during two seasons (seven episodes). We know Jo would have occasionally seen them in class, and at the cafeteria. But as far as I can recall, Nancy and Jo only hung out together once, at Cooper's Rock, with a bunch of other students from Eastland and Stone Military Academy.

But we just saw the girls for only about 24 minutes a week. There was lots of other times that they spent time together. Jo knew who Roger was. We didn't. We had Cindy and Jo sitting at the table together in Season 3, scanning over newspapers. Probably a newspaper of lesbian fan fiction.

I agree with you, Retro. But the “Little Chill” had lines like “So, this is the famous Jo.” That’s not something you say about someone you occasionally saw in school and had classes with.

Valid point about the "famous Jo" line, and also the "Nice to meet you" one.

I also wonder what happened to Chestnut. She was there in Season One, but Jo knew nothing of her. Did Eastland get rid of the stables during Summer 1980?

But we just saw the girls for only about 24 minutes a week. There was lots of other times that they spent time together.

Apparently not. No-one refers to this time, and no-one says "I'm hanging out with Sue Ann this week."


We had Cindy and Jo sitting at the table together in Season 3, scanning over newspapers. Probably a newspaper of lesbian fan fiction.
:lol:

But what was wrong about how they presented the cast in their present life?

I thought the roles of Sue Ann and Cindy in season 8 could've been written the way we knew them. Sue Ann was the one with the eating disorder in season 1, so it was a bit strange to hear that Cindy had the eating disorder. Not saying it's not uncommon to happen, but it's odd that the writers wrote her this way. Also, I think Cindy should have been made a famous athlete since she was such a tomboy. I'm not saying that people don't change, I just never saw her as the model type.

Why were the flashbacks unnecessary? We hadn't seen these characters in five years, and if ever there was a time to use a flashback, it would be to remind viewers who these characters were, what had happened, and how close these girls had been, back in the day. To me, this is far more legitimate of a reason for a flashback sequence than most of the times flashbacks were used on the series

We see flashbacks, for example, throughout Graduation. But the clips they showed were from episodes during the last two seasons.

I think they're just repetitive and an insult to the fans who know the episodes. Why revisit something fans have already seen? I get that they're for reminder sakes, but I found them irritating.

But I can understand that this show made frequent use of flashbacks. But if this episode were to be re-written, I would've definitely included flashbacks of the ones with Jo and the "Lost Girls" too!

I got the feeling Jo's hackles were raised by Tootie excluding her, at the beginning. That had nothing to do with how the Lost Girls treated Jo. That was a mistake Tootie made, which made Jo feel uncomfortable and out of place.

It wasn't just Tootie. It was Natalie too. She introduced Beverly Ann as "someone who has become an important part of [their] lives now," instead of Jo, who was there much longer. It was a MASSIVE insult and snub at Jo.

Jo totally overreacted to Sue Ann's comment "You had to be there". Finishing Sue Ann's comment, it would be, "You had to be there to understand why we find it funny", not "You weren't there, so butt out." Jo clearly took the comment as a slam, but I don't think Sue Ann meant it that way.

In fact, much has been made of Sue Ann being kinda snobby and lying, but the thing is... she wanted to impress the girls, and she was at a reunion. She did the exact same thing Beverly Ann did, but no-one takes BA to task for lying about her career. Only Sue Ann receives criticism.


Well, the fact that Sue Ann repeated and emphasized that line so often in such a snobby way made me feel like it was a dig at Jo. Every story Sue Ann gave felt like it was intentionally brought was meant to exclude Jo, and we knew that there had to be at least SOMETHING that they had to share at one point. She didn't even make an effort to include Jo. I wouldn't fault or blame Jo for overreacting because Sue Ann just overdid it.

Fair point about Beverly Ann, but it sounds like she hadn't seen those people for 25 years, and it didn't sound like she was too close to them, whereas it seems like "The Lost Girls" were still very close with Natalie, Blair, and Tootie and only a few seasons had passed. Not saying time or closeness excuses lies, but the lie seems more severe if it's from someone you're close to. We also don't know if she's just trying to tell a joke or be sarcastic?

The Reelz documentary says the episode had a ratings spike, but I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Wouldn't you want the return of old characters to bring in ratings?

Ratings are good, yes, but it shouldn't be at the expense of a quality script. Was there any reason why they came back at THIS time in season 8? It seemed out of the blue. Were they really still that close after all these years that they could openly express these sensitive topics? It's strange because we don't hear about them for multiple seasons, and seems like they are completely forgotten. How would they have all kept in touch that Tootie would know where they'd all be at?

But with 44 minutes instead of 22, they could have fleshed out these struggles much more. We could have seen sympathy given to Cindy. We could have seen the ramifications of Nancy's worries about motherhood.

Possibly. It would have been nice. The show had new writers and was going in a different direction too. This show became fluff at this point. I'd doubt they deep dive into serious topics like that.

I think even in the present day, it's definitely something that should be done with caution, and with careful consideration.

Fair point.

OMG, no. This show had skewed way conservative in the later years. Lisa would have boycotted the episode.

Yeah, they'd never do an abortion episode

I felt like they showed how Jo still had lingering feelings of being an outsider, but Jo's years among her friends had strengthened her to the point where she could be the bigger woman, and cover for someone who was clearly struggling with self-esteem issues.

And we see, throughout the seasons, that Sue Ann does struggle with self-esteem. To me, this felt very genuine.

Well, this was Pod Jo, and I don't think the real Jo would take this crap from someone who treated her like dirt the whole episode. She would stick up for herself and expose Sue Ann for the liar that she actually is. And, it'd be kind of therapy and relief, for the audience at least, to expose Sue Ann for the scoundrel she was because she was such a snobby insecure brat, and generally unlikeable the whole episode (and debatably, much of season 1). The ending was disappointing and anti-climactic because I was rooting for Jo the whole episode to finally stand up to how rudely they treated her as an "outsider" and for Jo to finally expose Sue Ann for the liar that she really was, but then that didn't happen, so the ending fell flat and sucked (as you probably could tell, I'm a huge Jo fan :lol:)

Well, it was Beverly Ann who claimed they didn't know Jo. Jo doesn't say this. In fact, Tootie says, "And you remember Jo." It's clear they knew each other, but were never close.

That's correct. Beverly Ann was wrong. Tootie did acknowledge that Jo once knew them, so evidently, the writers didn't completely forget that Jo and "The Lost Girls" were in the same seasons. But Nancy did say, "That's the famous Jo we heard about? I was expecting a wild cat." Surely, Nancy and Jo must've crossed paths (I can't remember if they were ever in a scene together, it's been a while since I've seen those episodes)! So it's like the writers contradicted themselves or it was foggy to them if they were ever together.

I'm not furious. He's my second-favorite Eastland headmaster, but I can see where he's irritating to some viewers. He was always meant to be an antagonist for Mrs. Garrett, who is the heroine.

I think he was supposed to be more "befuddled" than "sex offender". :lol:

Anyway, as always, I enjoyed reading your rant! :wave:

You'd think a headmaster wouldn't be befuddled, uncomfortable, and awkward around adolescent girls. So I never knew why they'd hired him, but it was a sitcom. Shrug. And well... when I said he'd be a sex offender by this point, I was being a bit extreme and hyperbolic. I was just trying to make a point that he wouldn't be welcomed back because he always acted like such a creep around them and was an antagonist to the girls and with so much time that had passed, he'd probably be even creepier! And it'd be even creepier to have him back when there were no men in this whole episode (not counting Andy). Like someone mentioned before, he'd probably be creeping through the windows while the girls were in their PJs :eek:

Glad you enjoyed my rant.

I thought the roles of Sue Ann and Cindy in season 8 could've been written the way we knew them. Sue Ann was the one with the eating disorder in season 1, so it was a bit strange to hear that Cindy had the eating disorder. Not saying it's not uncommon to happen, but it's odd that the writers wrote her this way. Also, I think Cindy should have been made a famous athlete since she was such a tomboy. I'm not saying that people don't change, I just never saw her as the model type.

I didn't see her as the model type, either, but I thought it was WAY cool that they incorporated Julie Anne's real-life modeling career into her character. Most of the characters were based on their real-life actors' personalities (with the exception of Blair and Jo), and this was a nice call-back to that. I LOVED it!

And I think it's disturbing but accurate that 2 out of 8 girls developed eating disorders. It feels like real life. Still, you raise a good point: it was Sue Ann who originally struggled with an eating disorder.


I think they're just repetitive and an insult to the fans who know the episodes. Why revisit something fans have already seen? I get that they're for reminder sakes, but I found them irritating.

But I can understand that this show made frequent use of flashbacks. But if this episode were to be re-written, I would've definitely included flashbacks of the ones with Jo and the "Lost Girls" too!

I think that should have happened, as well. They could have included Nancy/Jo/Blair's scenes in "Gossip", or maybe Sue Ann and Cindy hanging out with Jo in "Front Page". I wouldn't have included their scenes in "Sex Symbol" because they were kinda mean to Natalie, there.


It wasn't just Tootie. It was Natalie too. She introduced Beverly Ann as "someone who has become an important part of [their] lives now," instead of Jo, who was there much longer. It was a MASSIVE insult and snub at Jo.

To be fair, I don't think Natalie was purposely snubbing Jo. Nat knew Jo knew Cindy, Sue Ann, and Nancy from their years at Eastland, though clearly not as well as they did. She probably figured she needed no introduction.


Well, the fact that Sue Ann repeated and emphasized that line so often in such a snobby way made me feel like it was a dig at Jo. Every story Sue Ann gave felt like it was intentionally brought was meant to exclude Jo, and we knew that there had to be at least SOMETHING that they had to share at one point. She didn't even make an effort to include Jo. I wouldn't fault or blame Jo for overreacting because Sue Ann just overdid it.

Fair point.


Fair point about Beverly Ann, but it sounds like she hadn't seen those people for 25 years, and it didn't sound like she was too close to them, whereas it seems like "The Lost Girls" were still very close with Natalie, Blair, and Tootie and only a few seasons had passed. Not saying time or closeness excuses lies, but the lie seems more severe if it's from someone you're close to. We also don't know if she's just trying to tell a joke or be sarcastic?

I never took that line as a joke: Beverly Ann is just kooky enough to try such a thing.


Ratings are good, yes, but it shouldn't be at the expense of a quality script. Was there any reason why they came back at THIS time in season 8? It seemed out of the blue.

Sitcom visits in the 1980s were nearly always out of the blue. :lol:


Were they really still that close after all these years that they could openly express these sensitive topics? It's strange because we don't hear about them for multiple seasons, and seems like they are completely forgotten. How would they have all kept in touch that Tootie would know where they'd all be at?

Tootie would just have to contact the Alumni office at Eastland. She was even still a student there at the end of Season 7, so it was probably pretty easy to get that info and arrange for a visit just six episodes after she graduated.

The show had new writers and was going in a different direction too. This show became fluff at this point. I'd doubt they deep dive into serious topics like that.

The show was mostly fluff, but they did tackle one or two serious issues, even in S8.


Well, this was Pod Jo, and I don't think the real Jo would take this crap from someone who treated her like dirt the whole episode. She would stick up for herself and expose Sue Ann for the liar that she actually is. And, it'd be kind of therapy and relief, for the audience at least, to expose Sue Ann for the scoundrel she was because she was such a snobby insecure brat, and generally unlikeable the whole episode (and debatably, much of season 1).

:lol: Sorry, I can't agree! Sue Ann was so much more cheerful and kind than Jo in Jo's first seasons. But it's good we all have our own opinions!


The ending was disappointing and anti-climactic because I was rooting for Jo the whole episode to finally stand up to how rudely they treated her as an "outsider" and for Jo to finally expose Sue Ann for the liar that she really was, but then that didn't happen, so the ending fell flat and sucked (as you probably could tell, I'm a huge Jo fan :lol:)

Hey, nothing wrong with that!


That's correct. Beverly Ann was wrong. Tootie did acknowledge that Jo once knew them, so evidently, the writers didn't completely forget that Jo and "The Lost Girls" were in the same seasons. But Nancy did say, "That's the famous Jo we heard about? I was expecting a wild cat." Surely, Nancy and Jo must've crossed paths (I can't remember if they were ever in a scene together, it's been a while since I've seen those episodes)!

Jo and Nancy went with a group of Stone and Eastland students up to Cooper's Rock. The Lost Girls and Jo occasionally crossed paths, but only in 7 out of 68 episodes (including the Paris movie as four episodes, as it's split in syndication).


So it's like the writers contradicted themselves or it was foggy to them if they were ever together.

I don't think it's all that different than Brenda, Miko, Alexandra, and Terry: the Core Four knew these girls, but hadn't seen them in years. We were never going to get a flashback of Terry and Blair sharing a moment, because they never had any. Likewise, Brenda and Tootie never shared any moments.


You'd think a headmaster wouldn't be befuddled, uncomfortable, and awkward around adolescent girls.

I think it was because he had previously been a headmaster at a boys' school, where he would have had no problem marching right up to take care of a problem. He just didn't know how to handle girls.

And it'd be even creepier to have him back when there were no men in this whole episode (not counting Andy). Like someone mentioned before, he'd probably be creeping through the windows while the girls were in their PJs :eek:

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


Glad you enjoyed my rant.

I LOVE talking Facts, so I enjoy long rants!!!!

No I dont agree Jo should expose Sue Ann, she took the high road and they bonded in that moment. I still prefer Sue Ann over Jo so if she exposed her I would've thought Jo was just being nasty and the other girls probably would've too.

No I dont agree Jo should expose Sue Ann, she took the high road and they bonded in that moment.

Yes. Sue Ann had explained to Jo that those girls had always believed that she would make something of herself. Blair had spent years looking down on Sue Ann, and it mattered to Sue Ann what Blair (and the rest of the girls) thought of her.

Even though Sue Ann being a VP was a lie, she did work for the company. That's more than we can say for Beverly Ann's physicist job. And so Jo saw Sue Ann's desperation. She was the "bigger woman".

In a series about relationships between women, this episode gives us a really good example of how much Jo has grown, and how she can let go of her insecurities, after attending Eastland, and later Langley. Jo realizes that Sue Ann is no threat to her, and very shortly, Sue Ann is going to be leaving. Jo's temporary discomfort at having a new group dynamic will be eased.

And Sue Ann, who was willing to come clean, has time, now, to make her lie the truth. I love this ending.


I still prefer Sue Ann over Jo so if she exposed her I would've thought Jo was just being nasty and the other girls probably would've too.

It was Sue Ann's lie, but in exposing her, I agree that Jo may not have come across too well. Jo realized it didn't matter that Sue Ann lied: it didn't affect anything in their lives at the shop, nor in their studies. And maybe, just maybe, Jo remembered how supportive Sue Ann and Cindy were, when Jo wrote that horribly inaccurate story about Mr. Gideon. Maybe she remembered the time when Sue Ann helped them all lick stamps and envelopes. Maybe she remembered when the two of them graduated from Eastland together (okay, that scene didn't actually happen, but it should have! :lol: ).

And, motivated by that Eastland spirit, she let go of her outrage, and covered for her. In the end, they bonded even after clashing.

In some ways, this feels like a reflection of the relationship between Blair and o, early on: Jo continually pushes back, hard, until she realizes Blair isn't hurting her, and is actually a really good friend. It's a shame we didn't see Sue Ann (or the other Lost Girls) after this, because it would have been cool to see that relationship continue to develop.