This is the disclaimer that aired before the original controversial airing of "The First Time", where Natalie committed "S-E-X". :eek: (:lol:)

I'd never thought about it before, but you might think they would have put this up before "Breaking Point" since that's the darkest subject matter and this show had such a large youth following.

-

Or the Dope episode where they showed actual drug paraphernalia.

Or the Dope episode where they showed actual drug paraphernalia.

:yeahthat

I don’t think nick at nite showed Dope at all. Too edgy!!!

I don’t think nick at nite showed Dope at all. Too edgy!!!

"You're right, Lorsie---they didn't show 'Dope' either!"

[woman SCREAMS with laughter in back of audience]

"You're right, Lorsie---they didn't show 'Dope' either!"

[woman SCREAMS with laughter in back of audience]

Said woman:
:brent

"You're right, Lorsie---they didn't show 'Dope' either!"

[woman SCREAMS with laughter in back of audience]

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

This is the disclaimer that aired before the original controversial airing of "The First Time", where Natalie committed "S-E-X". :eek: (:lol:)

I'd never thought about it before, but you might think they would have put this up before "Breaking Point" since that's the darkest subject matter and this show had such a large youth following.

-

It's been said that Americans have some strange morals: a girl dies and there's no warning. But a girl has sex, and that's worthy of a disclaimer.

It's been said that Americans have some strange morals: a girl dies and there's no warning.

And not only that, but a girl the same age or older than most of the show's viewers, and she died by killing herself. At school.


But a girl has sex, and that's worthy of a disclaimer.

Sex, something adults have every day which is a completely natural thing. Hmm...

I also find it a little odd that they didn't use the full title of the show in the disclaimer. Why leave off the "The"? The show isn't called "Facts of Life".

I also find it a little odd that they didn't use the full title of the show in the disclaimer. Why leave off the "The"? The show isn't called "Facts of Life".

I didn't even notice! Great point! :lol:

I don't understand why TFT has a disclaimer but Dope and Breaking Point not. I think BP could be traumatic for a kid :lol:

I don't understand why TFT has a disclaimer but Dope and Breaking Point not. I think BT could be traumatic for a kid :lol:

Fear Strikes Back is another one. Mindy has said that gave her nightmares.

Fear Strikes Back is another one. Mindy has said that gave her nightmares.

Another good candidate.

So they're gonna put a disclaimer up for this episode but not for "Runaway" and "Pretty Babies," where young children are LITERALLY sexualized? For goodness sake, Natalie was a grown woman losing her virginity, but somehow this was so taboo it needed its own disclaimer.

NBC had a similar advisory the previous season on “Valerie”, when David was considering losing his virginity and his mother talked to him about condoms. And similar to FOL, another cast member (in this case Jeremy Licht, who played son Mark) missed the episode.

So they're gonna put a disclaimer up for this episode but not for "Runaway" and "Pretty Babies," where young children are LITERALLY sexualized? For goodness sake, Natalie was a grown woman losing her virginity, but somehow this was so taboo it needed its own disclaimer.

I think this demonstrates perfectly how conservative the show had become, in its later years.

Fear Strikes Back is another one. Mindy has said that gave her nightmares.

Yeah, that one too

I think this demonstrates perfectly how conservative the show had become, in its later years.

I wonder how much influence Lisa Whelchel had on that in later years?

I wonder how much influence Lisa Whelchel had on that in later years?

I think it's indisputable that Lisa had some influence: she could decline to do episodes, and her decision was honored. But I also believe the Reagan administration had an incredible and profound influence on the series.

This sounds odd at first, until you consider the fact that the Reagan administration was interested in promoting their agenda: Nancy Reagan even appeared on Diff'rent Strokes to promote their anti-drug campaign, "Just Say No". It's clear the Reagans knew the power of the media, and they absolutely harnessed it. We all remember nearly every 1980s sitcom had an anti-drug episode. We've all seen the photos of the Reagans hanging out with Nancy McKeon, Michael J. Fox, and other celebrities at the White House.

It is difficult to separate the Reagan Administration and its policies from the 1980s, which clearly had a profound influence on the television industry. There was this Reagan-promoted mantra that "greed is good"; Coca-Cola buying out Embassy Television and Tandem Productions for what is today a half a billion dollars signaled an end to an important, independent voice in the media, and epitomized the "greed is good" era. Knowing these things, how could FOL not be influenced by the administration?

I think it's indisputable that Lisa had some influence: she could decline to do episodes, and her decision was honored. But I also believe the Reagan administration had an incredible and profound influence on the series.

This sounds odd at first, until you consider the fact that the Reagan administration was interested in promoting their agenda: Nancy Reagan even appeared on Diff'rent Strokes to promote their anti-drug campaign, "Just Say No". It's clear the Reagans knew the power of the media, and they absolutely harnessed it. We all remember nearly every 1980s sitcom had an anti-drug episode. We've all seen the photos of the Reagans hanging out with Nancy McKeon, Michael J. Fox, and other celebrities at the White House.

It is difficult to separate the Reagan Administration and its policies from the 1980s, which clearly had a profound influence on the television industry. There was this Reagan-promoted mantra that "greed is good"; Coca-Cola buying out Embassy Television and Tandem Productions for what is today a half a billion dollars signaled an end to an important, independent voice in the media, and epitomized the "greed is good" era. Knowing these things, how could FOL not be influenced by the administration?

Though the "Dope" episode aired before the 1980 Election. It would have been taped before the Republican nomination was secured by Reagan.

Though the "Dope" episode aired before the 1980 Election. It would have been taped before the Republican nomination was secured by Reagan.

Yes, clearly "Dope" had nothing to do with Reagan.

So they're gonna put a disclaimer up for this episode but not for "Runaway" and "Pretty Babies," where young children are LITERALLY sexualized? For goodness sake, Natalie was a grown woman losing her virginity, but somehow this was so taboo it needed its own disclaimer.

More good episode candidates!

NBC had a similar advisory the previous season on “Valerie”, when David was considering losing his virginity and his mother talked to him about condoms. And similar to FOL, another cast member (in this case Jeremy Licht, who played son Mark) missed the episode.

I wonder if Jeremy missed the show because he had an issue with it?

There was this Reagan-promoted mantra that "greed is good"
Reagan never promoted a mantra of “greed is good.” What politician would? That was a quote from the movie “Wall Street.”

You can argue that the policies he supported (lower taxes, reduced government spending, deregulation) aligned with it, but he never said those words. His mantra was “limited government.” Ironically, even though he publicly supported reduced government spending, he actually increased it and ballooned the deficit.

Reagan never promoted a mantra of “greed is good.” What politician would? That was a quote from the movie “Wall Street.”

You can argue that the policies he supported (lower taxes, reduced government spending, deregulation) aligned with it, but he never said those words. His mantra was “limited government.” Ironically, even though he publicly supported reduced government spending, he actually increased it and ballooned the deficit.

He did not speak those words, nor did he need to. It was his followers, and certainly his policy (https://www.thoughtco.com/greed-is-good-or-is-it-quote-and-meaning-3306247):

President Ronald Reagan's policies matched the "greed is good" mood of 1980s America. He promised to reduce government spending, taxes, and regulation. He wanted to get government out of the way to allow the forces of supply and demand to rule the market unfettered. In 1982, Reagan kept his promise by deregulating banking.10 It led to the savings and loan crisis of 1989.


Reagan promoted trickle-down economics, even in speeches. The idea that the rich would collect the money and it would somehow "trickle down" to the lower classes. It certainly was a disaster for my family. By 1988, we were living in a crumbling shack that was eventually torn down. Awful, awful policies. Even Bush Sr. recognized how terrible those policies were.

It is difficult to separate the Reagan Administration and its policies from the 1980s, which clearly had a profound influence on the television industry. There was this Reagan-promoted mantra that "greed is good"; Coca-Cola buying out Embassy Television and Tandem Productions for what is today a half a billion dollars signaled an end to an important, independent voice in the media, and epitomized the "greed is good" era. Knowing these things, how could FOL not be influenced by the administration?

I agree that the show got more conservative as the show went on and that the Reagan era may have influenced the storylines in some ways. But when I look at The Facts of Life, I don't see the "greed is good" mantra being exercised at all! To me, the characters were greed-less and were self-less, even the rich Blair. Blair could have easily been greedy and ran off in season 5 and got her own place, but she decided to stay with her friends. We all witnessed at the end of the show that she sacrificed a large sum of her own money to pay for Eastland! Also, more characters were welcomed into the living spaces on the show, regardless of their background, and for many years the girls all shared the same room and belongings. I can't see how the "greed is good" mantra is being characterized in the show like you mentioned (I also agree with TV Guy here, this is a line from "Wall Street" and not to be drawn from Reagan's administration).

I agree that the show got more conservative as the show went on and that the Reagan era may have influenced the storylines in some ways. But when I look at The Facts of Life, I don't see the "greed is good" mantra being exercised at all! To me, the characters were greed-less and were self-less, even the rich Blair. Blair could have easily been greedy and ran off in season 5 and got her own place, but she decided to stay with her friends.

In Season Five, the characters still had strong moral compasses. When Jo "sells out" and starts making mass-manufactured pizza, Mrs. Garrett reins her in. The Edibles era still had morals the characters wouldn't break.

But for me, the opening of OOH led to this weird "sell-out" culture which permeated most of the rest of the series. The girls were so focused on selling junk to gullible customers, lying ("that shirt looks GREAT on you!"), and even reselling merch for a higher price. It gives me a great feeling of uneasiness when I see these girls, who I love, fall into this situation where they are conning customers for a living. It really hit me when I saw Natalie dressed similar to 1980s Madonna: they had all slowly become "Material Girls".

I also get that my POV is a minority one, and definitely respect yours. :wave:


We all witnessed at the end of the show that she sacrificed a large sum of her own money to pay for Eastland!

It's a wonderful ending, and that's clearly the Real Blair, not Pod Blair.


Also, more characters were welcomed into the living spaces on the show, regardless of their background

But was Pippa really welcomed? They seemed to treat her like a burden. Beverly Ann, too, sometimes.

But for me, the opening of OOH led to this weird "sell-out" culture which permeated most of the rest of the series. The girls were so focused on selling junk to gullible customers, lying ("that shirt looks GREAT on you!"), and even reselling merch for a higher price. It gives me a great feeling of uneasiness when I see these girls, who I love, fall into this situation where they are conning customers for a living. It really hit me when I saw Natalie dressed similar to 1980s Madonna: they had all slowly become "Material Girls".

I also get that my POV is a minority one, and definitely respect yours. :wave:

Judging by how poorly that store performed over the time it was open, I think that's more of a sign of their desperation and how hard they struggled to keep the store afloat. It's not like they were racking in the dough from the store. It closed on the first day and shortly re-opened and it was completely shuttered in season 9. I mean, who would buy nonessential novelty items in such a small town? I'm shocked it stayed open that long. I really can't blame them for their desperation to sell because they needed to pay the bills somehow. I agree with you that I think they could've treated customers better for sure in these years. They were more numbers than real people.

I think another sign that OOH wasn't doing well and wasn't driving revenue was that the girls had to get other jobs. I know for sure that Natalie had to get a second job at one point. Blair needed a job too, and she worked with Natalie briefly at Senior Sombrero.

The only time I saw Natalie as a "Material Girl" was when she went on a complete spending spree in that episode, "Post Christmas Card," but that was just one case. She wasn't hoarding and buying things like all throughout the show. Blair, on the other hand, was more of the "Material Girl." She'd drop subtle hints about how huge her wardrobe was but it wasn't so central to her character.

But was Pippa really welcomed? They seemed to treat her like a burden. Beverly Ann, too, sometimes.

I mean, maybe Pippa's was more of a nuisance but I think the Core Four did warm up to George, Andy, and Beverly Ann. My point was, they share a lot of living spaces with people and they could've easily asked them all to live in a separate residence and be greedy with their spaces.

It's a wonderful ending, and that's clearly the Real Blair, not Pod Blair.

I don't think that's a wonderful ending. :lookaroun

I don't think that's a wonderful ending. :lookaroun

Yeah, it wasn't a wonderful ending. It should not have happened.

He did not speak those words, nor did he need to. It was his followers, and certainly his policy (https://www.thoughtco.com/greed-is-good-or-is-it-quote-and-meaning-3306247):

President Ronald Reagan's policies matched the "greed is good" mood of 1980s America. He promised to reduce government spending, taxes, and regulation. He wanted to get government out of the way to allow the forces of supply and demand to rule the market unfettered. In 1982, Reagan kept his promise by deregulating banking.10 It led to the savings and loan crisis of 1989.


Reagan promoted trickle-down economics, even in speeches. The idea that the rich would collect the money and it would somehow "trickle down" to the lower classes.

Agreed that was his economic philosophy. But there’s a difference between the analysis that you’re quoting above, and your original post. You said “There was this Reagan-promoted mantra that ‘greed is good.’” That’s just not true. A mantra is a saying that is repeated. Reagan didn’t say that; it’s from a movie. If your original post said, “Reagan’s policies embodied a “greed is good” mentality,” I wouldn’t have said anything. But there are people who didn’t live through those days, and they shouldn’t believe that Reagan went around saying, “Greed is good,” because he didn’t.

But there are people who didn’t live through those days, and they shouldn’t believe that Reagan went around saying, “Greed is good,” because he didn’t.

I wish he went around saying, "America needs Cindy, Molly, Sue Ann, and Nancy."

Agreed that was his economic philosophy. But there’s a difference between the analysis that you’re quoting above, and your original post. You said “There was this Reagan-promoted mantra that ‘greed is good.’” That’s just not true. A mantra is a saying that is repeated.

Sort of. It can mean "a statement or slogan repeated frequently" But Webster defines (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mantra)"mantra" as "a mystical formula of invocation", and there are other interpretations. A number of authors define "mantra" as thought (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantra#Definition) or deeply held beliefs. Mantras can be a religious thought, prayer, sacred utterance, but is also believed to be a spell or weapon of supernatural power.


Reagan didn’t say that; it’s from a movie. If your original post said, “Reagan’s policies embodied a “greed is good” mentality,” I wouldn’t have said anything.

Well, while we're getting highly technical, the quote isn't actually from the movie (https://www.shmoop.com/quotes/greed-is-good-misquote.html). The quote is "The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good." Gordon Gekko has been misquoted. :lol:

Anyway, thanks for the convo! Always good to talk to people who know their stuff, and getting responses to my thoughts is very nice.

Judging by how poorly that store performed over the time it was open, I think that's more of a sign of their desperation and how hard they struggled to keep the store afloat. It's not like they were racking in the dough from the store. It closed on the first day and shortly re-opened and it was completely shuttered in season 9. I mean, who would buy nonessential novelty items in such a small town? I'm shocked it stayed open that long.

Yeah, we've discussed this before, and we agree that shop was clearly a bad idea. They really only had it for a little over two years, and it usually didn't seem to make them a lot of money. Peekskill is not a huge city, and their avant-garde ideas (like having a mime) seem out of touch.


I really can't blame them for their desperation to sell because they needed to pay the bills somehow. I agree with you that I think they could've treated customers better for sure in these years. They were more numbers than real people.

Good point about the customers being just numbers. I don't know. It just makes me feel uneasy about what they were doing. It felt like they had convinced themselves that scamming customers was a good thing. At one point, Tootie accuses a customer of sabotaging merchandise (the Kewpie dolls). But why was the merch defective? Why did they invest in low-quality kitsch that was so bad they didn't even know what it was? The characters got caught up in predatory capitalism, the complete opposite of Mrs. Garrett's message to Jo in "A Slice of Life".

I think another sign that OOH wasn't doing well and wasn't driving revenue was that the girls had to get other jobs. I know for sure that Natalie had to get a second job at one point. Blair needed a job too, and she worked with Natalie briefly at Senior Sombrero.

Blair took that job for a class credit to graduate. It wasn't to earn money. Natalie didn't take those other jobs to support herself. She wanted to live life to help her be a better writer. It's mention quite a bit in seasons 7 and 8. It's mention in The Little Chill where Sue Ann's lies make Natalie feel worthless with what she's doing. Up until that point, Natalie was happy getting to experience things she hadn't. We learn Sue Ann wasn't a nice person in this episode since she cared more about what people thought of her than being honest with her friends.

It's mention in The Little Chill where Sue Ann's lies make Natalie feel worthless with what she's doing. Up until that point, Natalie was happy getting to experience things she hadn't.

Oh that's right, I forgot about that. Shame on you, Lying Sue Ann. :nonono:

Maybe she thought that was payback for Natalie burning her in 'Running" with "Even Sue Ann, in her days glory, never made that" (the yearbook cover).

Oh that's right, I forgot about that. Shame on you, Lying Sue Ann. :nonono:

Maybe she thought that was payback for Natalie burning her in 'Running" with "Even Sue Ann, in her days glory, never made that" (the yearbook cover).

HAHA! Take THAT Natalie for your crack seven years ago! ;)

Oh that's right, I forgot about that. Shame on you, Lying Sue Ann. :nonono:

Maybe she thought that was payback for Natalie burning her in 'Running" with "Even Sue Ann, in her days glory, never made that" (the yearbook cover).

HAHA! Take THAT Natalie for your crack seven years ago! ;)


I look at it this way. Natalie is at least living the life she wanted. She's following her dream. Sue Ann is in a made up fairytale to her friends when in reality she's just a gofer. She's obviously embarrassed and ashamed with what she's doing because she has to lie to friends who wouldn't care. Natalie ends up getting the last laugh without knowing it because Sue Ann is a liar.

I look at it this way. Natalie is at least living the life she wanted. She's following her dream. Sue Ann is in a made up fairytale to her friends when in reality she's just a gofer. She's obviously embarrassed and ashamed with what she's doing because she has to lie to friends who wouldn't care. Natalie ends up getting the last laugh without knowing it because Sue Ann is a liar.

Well I doubt Sue Ann intended to make Natalie upset, she already committed to the lie before knowing. And Natalie probably never found out as Sue Ann likely obtained her goal within a few years. Sue Ann FTW!! :clap:

Well I doubt Sue Ann intended to make Natalie upset, she already committed to the lie before knowing. And Natalie probably never found out as Sue Ann likely obtained her goal within a few years. Sue Ann FTW!! :clap:

I don't know :lol: Natalie became a news reporter after she went to college in season 9. She went on to bigger things as we saw in the reunion movie. She also picked the cuter guy to be with. So she ended up doing well. I agree with you on Natalie never knowing about the lie. Sue Ann didn't care about her friendships. Sue Ann could be flipping burgers and telling the girls she's president of a restaurant chain just to save face. So it's Natalie FTW!! :p :lol:

Well I doubt Sue Ann intended to make Natalie upset, she already committed to the lie before knowing. And Natalie probably never found out as Sue Ann likely obtained her goal within a few years. Sue Ann FTW!! :clap:
I do believe Sue Ann when she says at the next reunion, she'll be a vice president. I absolutely love that they played on Sue Ann's insecurities in TLC as much as they had back in Season One.

We never found out if Sue Ann reached her goal. But I wouldn't be surprised: she went to a top-rated high school, got a job straight out of college, and was a student who other girls relied upon for tutoring. She wasn't the type of girl who needed to take a year (or two?) off to "find herself", the way Natalie did.

I do believe Sue Ann when she says at the next reunion, she'll be a vice president. I absolutely love that they played on Sue Ann's insecurities in TLC as much as they had back in Season One.

We never found out if Sue Ann reached her goal. But I wouldn't be surprised: she went to a top-rated high school, got a job straight out of college, and was a student who other girls relied upon for tutoring. She wasn't the type of girl who needed to take a year (or two?) off to "find herself", the way Natalie did.

Well if the reunion movie had been an actual reunion, we could have found out. We also could have found out if Nancy became a psychiatrist since that would have been her age range of making it. Wasn't it 36 when she would have her own practice?

I think it worked in Natalie's case to take those two years off to experience life. She wanted to be a better writer. It ended up landing her as a news reporter that let her travel the world to report popular news stories. It was nice to see her and Tootie follow their dream jobs. I wouldn't call Jo's job something she wanted since she was going for social work. Blair had the crappiest ending. She should be jealous of everyone because they ended up with better careers, or actual careers while she ran a broken down hotel with Mrs. Garrett's son :lol: How embarrassing for Blair.

Well if the reunion movie had been an actual reunion, we could have found out. We also could have found out if Nancy became a psychiatrist since that would have been her age range of making it. Wasn't it 36 when she would have her own practice?

It would have been nice to see that, but I guess it wasn't meant to be. Then again, we get to imagine what might have happened, rather than having a bad idea forced into FOL canon (like Jo's just-like-her daughter, ugh).


I think it worked in Natalie's case to take those two years off to experience life. She wanted to be a better writer. It ended up landing her as a news reporter that let her travel the world to report popular news stories. It was nice to see her and Tootie follow their dream jobs.

Oh, I agree that Natalie did need to find herself, and I'm glad she took that time, too. We got to see Natalie in many funny situations just because she was finding herself.

I also felt as though it was important for the show to represent the idea that not every successful person goes directly to four years of college. Natalie was her own person, and allowing her to have a slightly different story was super important, especially because the writers were also convinced that these girls should be living together for nine years. At the very least, having Natalie break away from the "going to college" mold for a while differentiated her from her closest friends. It was just a smart decision.

Blair had the crappiest ending. She should be jealous of everyone because they ended up with better careers, or actual careers while she ran a broken down hotel with Mrs. Garrett's son :lol: How embarrassing for Blair.

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

It would have been nice to see that, but I guess it wasn't meant to be. Then again, we get to imagine what might have happened, rather than having a bad idea forced into FOL canon (like Jo's just-like-her daughter, ugh).

Oh, I agree that Natalie did need to find herself, and I'm glad she took that time, too. We got to see Natalie in many funny situations just because she was finding herself.

I also felt as though it was important for the show to represent the idea that not every successful person goes directly to four years of college. Natalie was her own person, and allowing her to have a slightly different story was super important, especially because the writers were also convinced that these girls should be living together for nine years. At the very least, having Natalie break away from the "going to college" mold for a while differentiated her from her closest friends. It was just a smart decision.

I watched Till Death Do Us Part a while ago. Rick told Jo they would have a daughter. They just decided on a different name.

I remember in The Little Chill Nancy said she would be 36 by the time she would get to practice. Blair told her to do it since she would be 36 anyways. With the reunion in 2001, that would have been their age. It's a shame the reunion movie wasn't made by fans of the show. Just think of all the details the reunion movie would have had from the series if diehard fans like me had written it :lol: Since Nancy said no, I would have hit up the first season girls so it could be an actual reunion movie. I also would have brought in Beverly Ann so we could see her and Mrs. Garrett act together again. Not Andy because he was annoying and not Pippa because she wasn't necessary to the show.

I also like that Natalie didn't go straight to college. Realistically not everyone does when graduating high school. Some of the jobs Natalie had were funny to hear about. The mortuary and the fast food job were my favorites of hers.

I watched Till Death Do Us Part a while ago. Rick told Jo they would have a daughter. They just decided on a different name.

I remember in The Little Chill Nancy said she would be 36 by the time she would get to practice. Blair told her to do it since she would be 36 anyways. With the reunion in 2001, that would have been their age. It's a shame the reunion movie wasn't made by fans of the show. Just think of all the details the reunion movie would have had from the series if diehard fans like me had written it :lol:

I can totally see that it would have been better!

The thing is that I think the producers of the Reunion knew how important the show was to fans, and they did try to get it right. Hence the recreation of the Cafeteria. TJ stated at the time that the producers spent an ungodly sum of money just on that brief shot in the cafeteria.

But they were not diehard fans, so they didn't know what they had missed out on.


Since Nancy said no, I would have hit up the first season girls so it could be an actual reunion movie.

I would have absolutely loved that.

I also would have brought in Beverly Ann so we could see her and Mrs. Garrett act together again. Not Andy because he was annoying and not Pippa because she wasn't necessary to the show.

Bringing in Beverly Ann could have been really nice. I then would have brought in Andy just because he was BA's son and it would have been nice to see how that relationship progressed. I agree there was no need for Pippa. The girls didn't even act like they liked her when she was on the show.

I did like that they did have Raymond. That felt like a nice touch; shame we didn't get Alex, too.

Well if the reunion movie had been an actual reunion, we could have found out. We also could have found out if Nancy became a psychiatrist since that would have been her age range of making it. Wasn't it 36 when she would have her own practice?

I think it worked in Natalie's case to take those two years off to experience life. She wanted to be a better writer. It ended up landing her as a news reporter that let her travel the world to report popular news stories. It was nice to see her and Tootie follow their dream jobs. I wouldn't call Jo's job something she wanted since she was going for social work. Blair had the crappiest ending. She should be jealous of everyone because they ended up with better careers, or actual careers while she ran a broken down hotel with Mrs. Garrett's son :lol: How embarrassing for Blair.



That is one of the main reasons i'm not a big fan of the 'Reunion 2001': the way they rewrote BLAIR was really crap!
When i think about how LISA as BLAIR was the main girl in FOL, they could have come up with a better ending than the broken hotel with the wimp/weak husband they gave her! BEN would have been the perfect match for her, and if it was up to me, this is how i would have rewritten BLAIR's future:

It's 2001, and a beautiful blond woman joins her childhood/best friends for a reunion after 13 years: along with her is her 6 year old little girl and her husband BEN, whom she married after all (meeting him accidentally on a world tour).
BLAIR is is now a successful artist and has many of her painting in the 'Museum of modern art'; BEN is an Anthropologist and also teaches at the University, and ANNABELLE (BLAIR's little girl) is a very bright and curious first grader, who does very well at school but is also very vain....

PS: what do you guys think of my story so far?

:dance::dance::dance::dance::dance::dance::dance::dance::dance::dance::dance:

That is one of the main reasons i'm not a big fan of the 'Reunion 2001': the way they rewrote BLAIR was really crap!
When i think about how LISA as BLAIR was the main girl in FOL, they could have come up with a better ending than the broken hotel with the wimp/weak husband they gave her! BEN would have been the perfect match for her, and if it was up to me, this is how i would have rewritten BLAIR's future:

It's 2001, and a beautiful blond woman joins her childhood/best friends for a reunion after 13 years: along with her is her 6 year old little girl and her husband BEN, whom she married after all (meeting him accidentally on a world tour).
BLAIR is is now a successful artist and has many of her painting in the 'Museum of modern art'; BEN is an Anthropologist and also teaches at the University, and ANNABELLE (BLAIR's little girl) is a very bright and curious first grader, who does very well at school but is also very vain....

PS: what do you guys think of my story so far?

:dance::dance::dance::dance::dance::dance::dance::dance::dance::dance::dance:

And what about the other girls?