Good Times was and is a spinoff of Maude. The article admits that it is a spinoff. Alan Manning says it Really wasn't a spinoff but admits that the character was taken from Maude and changed. Therefore the character's life was changed, but is still the character from Maude which makes it a spinoff. Thanks Solomon for reassuring my belief.

Originally posted by Brian Damage
Good Times was and is a spinoff of Maude. The article admits that it is a spinoff. Alan Manning says it Really wasn't a spinoff but admits that the character was taken from Maude and changed. Therefore the character's life was changed, but is still the character from Maude which makes it a spinoff. Thanks Solomon for reassuring my belief.



So what does NOT REALLY Mean?

He didn't say it definitely wasn't a spinoff, he said it's not really a spinoff because they took the Florida Evans character and changed some things about her. However, he did admit it was the same character, therefore it is a spinoff.(however fractured it may be.) The article as a whole says it was a spinoff. If it wasn't a spinoff why did the writer write that? Especially after hearing what Manning said.

Of course, "Good Times" was a spin-off from "Maude". Sitty knows it too. He just likes to present an unpopular viewpoint for the sake of argument.

At least I was able to confirm it using the one article that he based his argument on.

Originally posted by Brian Damage
At least I was able to confirm it using the one article that he based his argument on.

I was so glad when you posted this response. I was in suspense when I saw your topic. Way to go.

That goes for me too. Way to go BrianDamage.;)

Sorry I had to do this to you Brian but I need the newer members to see How aggrressive I was in debating that Good times was not a spinoff.-LOL

Yeah, there were some threads that were downright vicious. lol

Yeah, there were some threads that were downright vicious. lol


I think i will gain more support from this thread-LOL

I thought I did a nice job of shooting the article down. *shrugs* ;)

I thought I did a nice job of shooting the article down. *shrugs* ;)


But there maybe some new members who will read this and say-"OH so the producer did say that, well maybe it's not a spinoff?-lol

But there maybe some new members who will read this and say-"OH so the producer did say that, well maybe it's not a spinoff?-lol
:smash: :rant: OMG!!!!!! NO MORE, PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!! :wave:

Sorry I had to do this to you Brian but I need the newer members to see How aggrressive I was in debating that Good times was not a spinoff.-LOL


Dude, why are you gonna bring this back up in the mix? That's a shame before God and red beans and rice! :happyface

Good Times was and is a spinoff of Maude. The article admits that it is a spinoff. Alan Manning says it Really wasn't a spinoff but admits that the character was taken from Maude and changed. Therefore the character's life was changed, but is still the character from Maude which makes it a spinoff. Thanks Solomon for reassuring my belief.



IRENE AND BRIENNA, this is what I have as SOLID PROOF that it wasn't a spinoff. This is my back up, the EP saying it really isn't a spinoff. Nothing Tops a Quote from the Executive Producer

HA HA SOLOMON IS WRONG!!!!!!!!but he won't admit it!!!!

creators of a show is all that really matters. had the creators stuck with the characters the way they were on Maude, it would be a spin-off...but because they created a show and it aired, for what was supposed to be a one time show in the spring of 74 and it got great ratings, the creators then had to make the changes to the characters. Alan Manings was replaced. Hmmmm...no credibility for this man!!! Ha ha ha ha....

WHOO HOO HOO HOO HOO WHOO HOO HOO HOO

HA HA SOLOMON IS WRONG!!!!!!!!but he won't admit it!!!!

creators of a show is all that really matters. had the creators stuck with the characters the way they were on Maude, it would be a spin-off...but because they created a show and it aired, for what was supposed to be a one time show in the spring of 74 and it got great ratings, the creators then had to make the changes to the characters. Alan Manings was replaced. Hmmmm...no credibility for this man!!! Ha ha ha ha....

WHOO HOO HOO HOO HOO WHOO HOO HOO HOO




Even if you don't want to say I'm right, you have to give me some credit for providing that quote from Alan Manings. I didn't do a good job in supporting my argument? Atleast say-"This debate will always be ongoing since the EP said It's not really a spinoff.

The person who created the show is all that matters to me and obviously the rest of the tv world, the history of television, the musuem of television and all that is related to television. One stupid word "really" not a spin-off does not constitute proof. You couldn't get by with that s**t in a courtroom. Your ass would be laughed at...:lol:

You got my respect Solomon. :lol:

The person who created the show is all that matters to me and obviously the rest of the tv world, the history of television, the musuem of television and all that is related to television. One stupid word "really" not a spin-off does not constitute proof. You couldn't get by with that s**t in a courtroom. Your ass would be laughed at...:lol:


Irene I gave you props on the Jeffersons board and said you was the TVResearchQueen so why can't I be the TVResearchKing?-lol Come Irene, give me my researching props

Irene I gave you props on the Jeffersons board and said you was the TVResearchQueen so why can't I be the TVResearchKing?-lol Come Irene, give me my researching props
what researching did you do??? you kept asking us for proof..:crazy: :lol: :lol: :lol: I had to PROVE TO YOU ABT MOVIN' ON UP WHEN I SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO. I will give you props for putting up a fight, but like i said, that is NO PROOF. It wouldn't make it in a court of law, superior court, district court, federal court...Hell, it wouldn't even make it in People's court! LOL

props only for the fight...I GIVE MY PROPS TO MY GIRLS FOR STICKING WITH ME ON THIS ISSUE and the rest of the television history world.

You got my respect Solomon. :lol:


Solomon gets mine as well. I give it to for putting up a good fight. I just still believe that this show is a spinoff....with fragments. That's all.

IRENE AND BRIENNA, this is what I have as SOLID PROOF that it wasn't a spinoff. This is my back up, the EP saying it really isn't a spinoff. Nothing Tops a Quote from the Executive Producer


I'm not debating this any longer because you haven't shown us any proof, So until you scan the article out of the magazine and show us where Eric Monte and Michael Evans states that GT wasn't a spinoff then I'll believe it.

I'm not debating this any longer because you haven't shown us any proof, So until you scan the article out of the magazine and show us where Eric Monte and Michael Evans states that GT wasn't a spinoff then I'll believe it.


Brian Damage was my proof that there was an article supporting my argument because he received it in the mail. So I guess the debate will be ongoing until I find the article from Monte-lol

Even if you don't want to say I'm right, you have to give me some credit for providing that quote from Alan Manings. I didn't do a good job in supporting my argument? Atleast say-"This debate will always be ongoing since the EP said It's not really a spinoff.


You haven't proven anything, I haven't seen this so called article. The man who gave the interveiw didn't even create the show. :lol:

You haven't proven anything, I haven't seen this so called article. The man who gave the interveiw didn't even create the show. :lol:


So basically you are calling Brian a lair-lol I just said he has sen it so why isn't that good enough for you? You can even read the beginning of this thread and see that he received the article.

So basically you are calling Brian a lair-lol I just said he has sen it so why isn't that good enough for you? You can even read the beginning of this thread and see that he received the article.


Just like you want proof we want proof.

Just like you want proof we want proof.
Exactly. A creator who calls his "idea" a spin-off vs. a disgruntled white former executive producer who only states "really"...and you of all people Solomon to accept that as proof???? Funny how when I stated MOVIN' ON UP was said before the Jeffersons YOU DIDN'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT..

Seems to me the issue is not really the article, but what YOU SOLOMON choose to believe and you don't believe me because I am a woman. You choose to believe an exec who is a man. Bottom line, that is what it is, because when I (a woman) provided proof (when I shouldn't have to, that's your job) you still want to refute that.

BUT YOU WILL TAKE THE SUPPOSED "WRITTEN STATEMENT" OF A FORMER EXEC.PRODUCER ONLY SHOWS HOW YOUR TITLE OF TVRESEARCHER SHOULD BE HANDED TO SOMEONE ELSE WHO KNOWS HOW TO RESEARCH AND MAKE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON MANY SOURCES...NOT THE SUPPOSED STATEMENT OF ONE MAN WHEN THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF OTHER SOURCES THAT STATE OTHERWISE.

Exactly. A creator who calls his "idea" a spin-off vs. a disgruntled white former executive producer who only states "really"...and you of all people Solomon to accept that as proof???? Funny how when I stated MOVIN' ON UP was said before the Jeffersons YOU DIDN'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT..

Seems to me the issue is not really the article, but what YOU SOLOMON choose to believe and you don't believe me because I am a woman. You choose to believe an exec who is a man. Bottom line, that is what it is, because when I (a woman) provided proof (when I shouldn't have to, that's your job) you still want to refute that.

BUT YOU WILL TAKE THE SUPPOSED "WRITTEN STATEMENT" OF A FORMER EXEC.PRODUCER ONLY SHOWS HOW YOUR TITLE OF TVRESEARCHER SHOULD BE HANDED TO SOMEONE ELSE WHO KNOWS HOW TO RESEARCH AND MAKE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON MANY SOURCES...NOT THE SUPPOSED STATEMENT OF ONE MAN WHEN THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF OTHER SOURCES THAT STATE OTHERWISE.


I think that is a bit of a stretch don't you think Irene? It has nothing to do with a woman vs a man. He never believed me when I said it was a spinoff. Solomon is just firm on his beliefs that it is a spinoff and does have some articles and other proof that supports that.

I think that is a bit of a stretch don't you think Irene? It has nothing to do with a woman vs a man. He never believed me when I said it was a spinoff. Solomon is just firm on his beliefs that it is a spinoff and does have some articles and other proof that supports that.


Right it has nothing to do with her being a woman because like you said Brian I was not accepting your argument either when all this started-lol

I think that is a bit of a stretch don't you think Irene? It has nothing to do with a woman vs a man. He never believed me when I said it was a spinoff. Solomon is just firm on his beliefs that it is a spinoff and does have some articles and other proof that supports that.
HE HAS YET TO SHOW US THAT PROOF...proof, you know that thing he keeps demanding of me and Brieanna but never ever provides us with. All talk. He promised yesterday he was going to POST THE PROOF HERE...nothing yet!:lol:

HE HAS YET TO SHOW US THAT PROOF...proof, you know that thing he keeps demanding of me and Brieanna but never ever provides us with. All talk. He promised yesterday he was going to POST THE PROOF HERE...nothing yet!:lol:

He provided me with proof and I am still a believer that it was a spinoff. Oh well, Solomon, I guess you have to go to the archive or this topic will never end. lol

He provided me with proof and I am still a believer that it was a spinoff. Oh well, Solomon, I guess you have to go to the archive or this topic will never end. lol
i know it's a spin-off. Norman Lear and Monte and Evans are the only ones who will have to say otherwise for me to change my mind. First Brian you said Solomon has ALL THIS PROOF...sounds like alot, yet, no one has seen it. You have seen one article? that is a stretch to say ALL this proof. When one says ALL THIS PROOF it normally means more than one source, more than one documentation, etc. You said he has articles and proofs...that sounds like a lot to me, yet I keep hearing this same old article.

i know it's a spin-off. Norman Lear and Monte and Evans are the only ones who will have to say otherwise for me to change my mind. First Brian you said Solomon has ALL THIS PROOF...sounds like alot, yet, no one has seen it. You have seen one article? that is a stretch to say ALL this proof. When one says ALL THIS PROOF it normally means more than one source, more than one documentation, etc. You said he has articles and proofs...that sounds like a lot to me, yet I keep hearing this same old article.


Can't you just respect his opinion?

The debate that will last forever...:lol:

i know it's a spin-off. Norman Lear and Monte and Evans are the only ones who will have to say otherwise for me to change my mind. First Brian you said Solomon has ALL THIS PROOF...sounds like alot, yet, no one has seen it. You have seen one article? that is a stretch to say ALL this proof. When one says ALL THIS PROOF it normally means more than one source, more than one documentation, etc. You said he has articles and proofs...that sounds like a lot to me, yet I keep hearing this same old article.

I am not going to go through hundreds of threads on this same topic. There is stuff there, although I will admit I don't remember most of it. He does put up a great fight.

i know it's a spin-off. Norman Lear and Monte and Evans are the only ones who will have to say otherwise for me to change my mind. First Brian you said Solomon has ALL THIS PROOF...sounds like alot, yet, no one has seen it. You have seen one article? that is a stretch to say ALL this proof. When one says ALL THIS PROOF it normally means more than one source, more than one documentation, etc. You said he has articles and proofs...that sounds like a lot to me, yet I keep hearing this same old article.


I think what Brian means is I made STRONG points to support my argument in addition to the article I sent him.

Can't you just respect his opinion?


I can respect his opinion but his opinion isn't FACT.

Oh and why is it on Maude, Esther Rolles character name was Florida Evans :lol:

I can respect his opinion but his opinion isn't FACT.


True my opinion is not fact but remember last night when I said Brian Damage was my proof because I don;t think I have the article anymore? So thats why I thought you and Irene would believe that there was an article since Brian is saying he did receive it from me. Plus Norman Lear already gave me my props-lol-lol

I can respect his opinion but his opinion isn't FACT.

Oh and why is it on Maude, Esther Rolles character name was Florida Evans :lol:


Nobody is saying his opinion is fact. He believes what he believes and we believe we believe. The arguing is getting a little redundant because neither side is going to budge.

It's just a name. I'm sure their are other people name Florida Evans in the world. Maybe they just used the name and not the characters since wasn't Henry a fireman on Maude?


I've always believed that GT was a spin-off of Maude and I still do but Solomon's posts in the last few years has had me thinking hard about that. One thing I know is that Good Times is a spin-off like no other.

The article I provided to support my argument will always make this a ongoing debate. The End-lol

It's just a name. I'm sure their are other people name Florida Evans in the world.


I've always believed that GT was a spin-off of Maude and I still do but Solomon's posts in the last few years has had me thinking hard about that. One thing I know is that Good Times is a spin-off like no other.



Exactly Sonny, the only thing that article did for me was to give the others who think GT is a spinoff something to think about. That article still kind of makes this debate ongoing until I support something a lot STRONGER. But I didn't WIN this debate at all, I just did a good job of keeping it an active topic.

Good Times was and is a spinoff of Maude. The article admits that it is a spinoff. Alan Manning says it Really wasn't a spinoff but admits that the character was taken from Maude and changed. Therefore the character's life was changed, but is still the character from Maude which makes it a spinoff. Thanks Solomon for reassuring my belief.
Alan Manning was the Executive Producer of Good Times, and he said the show wasn't really a spinoff?

I don't know enough about all this to give a solid opinion one way or the other, but the EP saying that does support Solomon's argument.

And if Brian says he read it, he read it. He's not a liar.

Alan Manning was the Executive Producer of Good Times, and he said the show wasn't really a spinoff?

I don't know enough about all this to give a solid opinion one way or the other, but the EP saying that does support Solomon's argument.

And if Brian says he read it, he read it. He's not a liar.
I don't doubt Brian. But Brie and I had been told to PROVIDE PROOF, GIVE ME PROOF...why? we know it's a spin-off. We don't need to prove something that is stated thousand times over in hundreds of sources. When one comes here to argue OTHERWISE, that's when THAT PERSON NEEDS TO SHOW US PROOF. and besides BRIAN STATES THE ARTICLE ONLY FURTHER PROVES TO HIM THAT IT IS A SPIN-OFF.

I agree that Good Times is a spin off, but this is like a dog chasing after his tail...we are just going round and round with no purpose.

I agree that Good Times is a spin off, but this is like a dog chasing after his tail...we are just going round and round with no purpose.
Brian, do you remember if Alan Manning stated it was a spin-off?

Maybe someone can write to Norman Lear. He can't be doing much these days. Famous people often reply.

Brian, do you remember if Alan Manning stated it was a spin-off?

Maybe someone can write to Norman Lear. He can't be doing much these days. Famous people often reply.
:rofl: :rofl: "he can't be doing much these days"...lol that is funny!!!!!


BTW, tomorrow me and my boyfriend are heading to Los Angeles for something...i am also going to the homeless shelter where Eric Monte is and I will find him and ask him myself! :snob:

Exactly. A creator who calls his "idea" a spin-off vs. a disgruntled white former executive producer who only states "really"...and you of all people Solomon to accept that as proof???? Funny how when I stated MOVIN' ON UP was said before the Jeffersons YOU DIDN'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT..

Seems to me the issue is not really the article, but what YOU SOLOMON choose to believe and you don't believe me because I am a woman. You choose to believe an exec who is a man. Bottom line, that is what it is, because when I (a woman) provided proof (when I shouldn't have to, that's your job) you still want to refute that.

Irene, are you claiming sexism and racism? Good Lord.

:rofl: :rofl: "he can't be doing much these days"...lol that is funny!!!!!
Why is that so funny? Norman Lear is elderly. It's possible that he would reply to a request.

Why is that so funny? Norman Lear is elderly. It's possible that he would reply to a request.
Because he may be elderly but he was at the TVLand awards...i highly doubt he is sitting around doing nothing.

he was at the TVLand awards and John Amos mentioned his name when he was talking abt Good Times and giving him Thanks. I don't recall Norman Lear standing up and saying "Good Times wasn't a spin-off"...LOL

to Say-"Good Times is a Spinoff of Maude, Or Is It?


We can leave at that for now until I provide something else. Are we all in agreement on this?-lol

to Say-"Good Times is a Spinoff of Maude, Or Is It?


We can leave at that for now until I provide something else. Are we all in agreement on this?-lol
You said it better than anyone! I agree...you got it!

Because he may be elderly but he was at the TVLand awards...i highly doubt he is sitting around doing nothing.

Nobody said he was sitting around doing nothing. He's in his 80s though, and I'm sure he leads a very low-key life.

The point that I'm trying to get across to you is that famous people do respond to fans. It happens all the time.
he was at the TVLand awards and John Amos mentioned his name when he was talking abt Good Times and giving him Thanks. I don't recall Norman Lear standing up and saying "Good Times wasn't a spin-off"...LOL
That's a silly argument, point...or whatever you want to call it.

The tension mounts...........anyway this is taking too much work to prove whether this show is a spinoff or not. It is still linked to Maude due to Esther Rolle and John Amos' potrayals of the Evans' couple on both shows. This is a show with fractured spinoff material or what I would call spinoff residue. Plain and Simple. We can use every book or article ang go back and forth but if it walks like a duck and acts like a duck, well........you fill in the blanks.

I understand that the producers wanted independency from Maude but there is still a connection just like the producers of Knots Landing wanted distance from Dallas in the later seasons but the Florida Evans that we see on Good Times originated from Maude and was combined with an idea for a show that was taken off the shelf and dusted off. It became her show. Therefore, it is an umbrella.

Let us not beat a dead horse or in the Evans' case, let us not beat an already drunk whino or dead cockroach!

The tension mounts...........anyway this is taking too much work to prove whether this show is a spinoff or not. It is still linked to Maude due to Esther Rolle and John Amos' potrayals of the Evans' couple on both shows. This is a show with fractured spinoff material or what I would call spinoff residue. Plain and Simple. We can use every book or article ang go back and forth but if it walks like a duck and acts like a duck, well........you fill in the blanks.

I understand that the producers wanted independency from Maude but there is still a connection just like the producers of Knots Landing wanted distance from Dallas in the later seasons but the Florida Evans that we see on Good Times originated from Maude and was combined with an idea for a show that was taken off the shelf and dusted off. It became her show. Therefore, it is an umbrella.

Let us not beat a dead horse or in the Evans' case, let us not beat an already drunk whino or dead cockroach!



Or we can also say the deabte is on PAUSE until the TVResearcher comes across some more POWERFUL info to support my argument-LOL-LOL

Or we can also say the deabte is on PAUSE until the TVResearcher comes across some more POWERFUL info to support my argument-LOL-LOL


If you want to continue to research, that is good and well. However, it is still what it is. I have no issue with it. Es asunto tuyo. No es mio.

If you want to continue to research, that is good and well. However, it is still what it is. I have no issue with it. Es asunto tuyo. No es mio.
Orale!!!!! I know it's a spin-off. Until Eric Monte STATES OTHERWISE, it's a spin-off. Nuff said. If I created something, I wouldn't allow ANYONE ELSE to call it something.

Hi everyone! Remember me? :wave:

I just noticed this thread and I just read the 1st 2 - 3 posts and I just had to say something.

Now.................... Good Times is a spinoff from Maude. :)

Hi everyone! Remember me? :wave:

I just noticed this thread and I just read the 1st 2 - 3 posts and I just had to say something.

Now.................... Good Times is a spinoff from Maude. :)




Yes it was! :lol:

You see Solomon another woman from the 70's generation that sees it as a spinoff. :lol:

Yes it was! :lol:

You see Solomon another woman from the 70's generation that sees it as a spinoff. :lol:
Brian, i think that's what it is that makes us so defensive abt this. We grew up watching this show during its FIRST RUN. The publicity revolved around the show, the constant interviews "JJ" did such on Dinah and many others, magazine interviews, not just JJ but the other actors from GT's as well, it was constantly being said in one way or another that GOOD TIMES WAS A SPIN-OFF OF MAUDE. Now, if it wasn't a spin-off, don't you think that with so many people referring to GT as a spin-off (tv interviewers, magazines, all other sources) someone would have come forward (Norman Lear, Eric Monte in particular) and said, HEY PEOPLE, IT'S NOT A SPIN-OFF...THE CHARACTER CAME FROM MAUDE BUT THE SHOW WAS DEVELOPED TO BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT. Being from the 70's, I never ever heard it be said that GT was NOT a spin-off. It was always being referred to as a spin-off. Does anyone understand what i mean?

Take a current show now on the air, if it is being referred to something over and over and over again, people who watch it now will remember what was being said abt it. Just like "Roseanne" and "Cosby Show" had been referenced as breakthrough television...even though it has been 20 some years, we still refer to it as that because that is what those shows were being called.

:rofl: This message board makes the work day all worth while. :smash: :rant: OMG!!!!!! NO MORE, PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!! :wave:

:rofl: This message board makes the work day all worth while.
it does doesn't it...:lol: :lol: :wave:

Yes it was! :lol:

You see Solomon another woman from the 70's generation that sees it as a spinoff. :lol:


Well my mom watched The very first ep of Good Times on CBS and she said that she never considered it a spinoff of Maude during that time. Another woman who came along during the 70's-lol

Well my mom watched The very first ep of Good Times on CBS and she said that she never considered it a spinoff of Maude during that time. Another woman who came along during the 70's-lol
But see Solomon, there you go again, having others speak for you...We are talking FOR OURSELVES. And the thing is you always state your MOM like she is the authority on everything. You believed her abt that MOVIN' ON UP phrase and look what happened there...;)

But see Solomon, there you go again, having others speak for you...We are talking FOR OURSELVES. And the thing is you always state your MOM like she is the authority on everything. You believed her abt that MOVIN' ON UP phrase and look what happened there...;)



I'm not you should say GT is not spinoff because of what my mom said, i'm just saying she is a person who ALSO feels that GT is not a spinoff

I'm not you should say GT is not spinoff because of what my mom said, i'm just saying she is a person who ALSO feels that GT is not a spinoff
well now, that's 3 people against, what, a million????:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

well now, that's 3 people against, what, a million????:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Don't forget Trishalla-lol-lol

Don't forget Trishalla-lol-lol
Like i said 3 PEOPLE... an executive producer saying "not really" doesn't mean much...it either IT IS or IT ISN'T...that's like saying "not really angry" either you are or you aren't...:crazy:

Like i said 3 PEOPLE... an executive producer saying "not really" doesn't mean much...it either IT IS or IT ISN'T...that's like saying "not really angry" either you are or you aren't...:crazy:


Well It's a good thing to have the EP on my side isn't it?-lol

Well It's a good thing to have the EP on my side isn't it?-lol
No. Your on HIS side. and I would have more status with Eric Monte, THE CREATOR. That's like saying, I have the Secretary of State on my side, instead of the PRESIDENT!;)

Solomon, I guess your mom wasn't a fan of Maude. LOL

Solomon, I guess your mom wasn't a fan of Maude. LOL
:crazy: :lol:

Solomon, I guess your mom wasn't a fan of Maude. LOL


I don't think she was, she just watched it because it wasn't a such thing as Cable back then

I don't think she was, she just watched it because it wasn't a such thing as Cable back then
which is why a lot of shows were hits back then like ODAAT...there wasn't cable back then and whatever the three networks had is what you got, take it or leave it.

I don't think she was, she just watched it because it wasn't a such thing as Cable back then

So that right there eliminates her from the discussion.

So that right there eliminates her from the discussion.


She still saw enough of Maude to know it was based in New York and that Good times had Florida in Chicago broke-lol That's why she said she never saw the CONNECTION between those two shows

She still saw enough of Maude to know it was based in New York and that Good times had Florida in Chicago broke-lol That's why she said she never saw the CONNECTION between those two shows
What connection???? how big a connection does a show have to have with another for it to be a spin-off...

and besides, Good times stood on its own...it didn't need MAUDE or anything else to hold the ground it did back then. It was awesome. I don't recall any spin-off having to have a major connection with it's parent show for it to succeed.

What connection???? how big a connection does a show have to have with another for it to be a spin-off...

and besides, Good times stood on its own...it didn't need MAUDE or anything else to hold the ground it did back then. It was awesome. I don't recall any spin-off having to have a major connection with it's parent show for it to succeed.



How bout

The Cosby Show and A Different World

Three's Company and the Ropers

All in the Family and the Jeffersons

All in the Family and Maude

Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley

Happy Days and Joanie Loves Chachi

Happy Days and Mork and Mindy

Mary Tyler Moore and Rhoda

Mary Tyler Moore and Phyllis

Jeffersons and Checking In

How bout

The Cosby Show and A Different World

Three's Company and the Ropers

All in the Family and the Jeffersons

All in the Family and Maude

Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley

Happy Days and Joanie Loves Chachi

Happy Days and Mork and Mindy

Mary Tyler Moore and Rhoda

Mary Tyler Moore and Phyllis

Jeffersons and Checking In
How dare you put Joanie loves Chachi...what an insult to audiences OVERALL!!!!!!

And your point is??????

Rhoda could have worked without MTM
Jeffersons would have stood on its own without AITF...when did the Jeffersons ever had ARchie on the show?

I could go on and on, but most of those shows you mentioned could have worked without their parent shows.
Audiences didn't watch shows because "Oh the characters came from Happy Days"
They watched the shows because of the overall aspect of the show. Big Deal, look at Kramer from Seinfeld... and Elaine and the fat guy, they each flopped with their own shows.

How dare you put Joanie loves Chachi...what an insult to audiences OVERALL!!!!!!

And your point is??????

Rhoda could have worked without MTM
Jeffersons would have stood on its own without AITF...when did the Jeffersons ever had ARchie on the show?

I could go on and on, but most of those shows you mentioned could have worked without their parent shows.
Audiences didn't watch shows because "Oh the characters came from Happy Days"
They watched the shows because of the overall aspect of the show. Big Deal, look at Kramer from Seinfeld... and Elaine and the fat guy, they each flopped with their own shows.



Irene disregard my last post, i meant to say ADW was carried by the cosby show and that laverne and shirley was carried by Happy Days

Irene disregard my last post, i meant to say ADW was carried by the cosby show and that laverne and shirley was carried by Happy Days


TCS did not carry ADW. Where did you get that from:confused:

TCS did not carry ADW. Where did you get that from:confused:


Brie the Cosby show carried ADW for 2 years.

Brie the Cosby show carried ADW for 2 years.


LOL How? because Denise was on it for 1 season?

Brie the Cosby show carried ADW for 2 years.
with Lisa Bonet in it it was really an extension of the Cosby Show. It didn't carry well on its own until they got rid of her and expanded more on the other characters.

LOL How? because Denise was on it for 1 season?


I gave a reason why on the spinoff board

with Lisa Bonet in it it was really an extension of the Cosby Show. It didn't carry well on its own until they got rid of her and expanded more on the other characters.

Exactly, the first season was horrible, So I don't see how TCS carried anything :lol: You saw Claire what? three times I believe during the whole run of ADW, so I don't see TCS carrying anything.

Exactly, the first season was horrible, So I don't see how TCS carried anything :lol: You saw Claire what? three times I believe during the whole run of ADW, so I don't see TCS carrying anything.
This is a good example of how a show that emphasizes too much on its parent show CAN RUIN IT. It needed to stand on its own...when it did, it was solid, it was good.

Eric Monte in a interview explained that GT is not a Maude Spin off and he created the show So I will take the word of the Person who created the show.

and also Monte clearly states that GT, was created and already in motion before Maude aired.

But I know many of you will not change your mind about this because its only natural that you would think of GT as a spin off from Maude because that's when American first saw "Floridia".

And as good as televison was back then, the writers and creators were not that good and making a clear connection or disconnection with the "Floridia" Charactor from Maude to GT. And thats why we will always debate this and we will never really know if it is a spin off.

However I do believe that They Used the "Floridia" charactor in Maude to "test the waters" with Rolle and Amos as the two main charactors.

but oh well
any of you who know me on this board know I will never call it a spin off

Exactly, the first season was horrible, So I don't see how TCS carried anything :lol: You saw Claire what? three times I believe during the whole run of ADW, so I don't see TCS carrying anything.
It carried the show because of the timeslot it was in. The first season was horrible and I never cared for the episodes that Claire appeared in later on in the series either. The show just didn't need The Huxtables.

Eric Monte in a interview explained that GT is not a Maude Spin off and he created the show So I will take the word of the Person who created the show.

and also Monte clearly states that GT, was created and already in motion before Maude aired.

But I know many of you will not change your mind about this because its only natural that you would think of GT as a spin off from Maude because that's when American first saw "Floridia".

And as good as televison was back then, the writers and creators were not that good and making a clear connection or disconnection with the "Floridia" Charactor from Maude to GT. And thats why we will always debate this and we will never really know if it is a spin off.

However I do believe that They Used the "Floridia" charactor in Maude to "test the waters" with Rolle and Amos as the two main charactors.

but oh well
any of you who know me on this board know I will never call it a spin off
If you can find that interview, it might end this debate.

If you can find that interview, it might end this debate.
That's what I said...she boobooed. she made this same post here, and she made it on the one thread it should be on...that's ok.

YES proof is what we need. Because I have heard and read things too, but around here, THAT IS NOT ENOUGH. Ask Solomon! PROOF IS A MUST!

i REMEMBER THAT INTERVIEW THAT tRISHALLA POSTED. OOps, sorry I had the cap lock on and I am too lazy to go back and delete what I wrote. lol In all seriousness, the link to the article is in one of these old threads.

Brian in honor of your 10th Anniversary, I had to bump up the greatest discussion in the history of SitcomsOnline

LOL, the good ole days

Brian in honor of your 10th Anniversary, I had to bump up the greatest discussion in the history of SitcomsOnline

LOL, the good ole days


LOL

That was some crazy crap we tangled on Sol.

P.S.

Good Times was/is a spin-off of Maude. ;)

LOL

That was some crazy crap we tangled on Sol.

P.S.

Good Times was/is a spin-off of Maude. ;)


I remember sending you that article in the mail. Today I would have just scanned the article and posted it on the board. Couldn't do that back then because I had no laptop, only webtv

I remember getting that article. If I remember correctly, you highlighted the points you wanted me to read. lol

I remember getting that article. If I remember correctly, you highlighted the points you wanted me to read. lol

Yup I sure did, I wanted it to be clear.

Yup I sure did, I wanted it to be clear.


LOL

The good old days indeed!

LOL

The good old days indeed!


Now I can just go online and read that same article-LOL


I'm so happy I got rid of Webtv. That sh*t would just cut off while i was in a middle of a conversation and I had to turn it back on again. I was fed up in august of 2011 and called them to say..."CANCEL THIS SH*T"

LMAO

Now I can just go online and read that same article-LOL


I'm so happy I got rid of Webtv. That sh*t would just cut off while i was in a middle of a conversation and I had to turn it back on again. I was fed up in august of 2011 and called them to say..."CANCEL THIS SH*T"

LMAO


Smartest move you ever made Sol

Smartest move you ever made Sol


Brian it go to the point that webtv so outdated that sitcomsonline was the only site I was able to access. That's why I keep it on so long and then I just said GOODBYE

OMG! This thread here hasn't been touched in six years. LOL. Oh, Solomon. You never cease to surprise.

OMG! This thread here hasn't been touched in six years. LOL. Oh, Solomon. You never cease to surprise.

Greatest TV Thread of SitcomsOnline, LOL

Good Times. lol

@ Stuck: Very clever! LOL.

@ Solomon: Yes, it was. I can't lie. LOL. BTW, my cable is coming back on Tuesday. Yay!

Bump.

It’s about 20 years later and we’re still debating whether or not Good Times is a spinoff. We should all come to the conclusion that it is indeed a spinoff.

Case dismissed.

It’s about 20 years later and we’re still debating whether or not Good Times is a spinoff. We should all come to the conclusion that it is indeed a spinoff.

Case dismissed.

Nope, I'm sticking with Sol and the few here who say Good Times was NOT a spin off of Maude. :lol:

Nope, I'm sticking with Sol and the few here who say Good Times was NOT a spin off of Maude. :lol:
Well I’m sticking with myself and the 85% of people here who say that Good Times IS a spinoff of Maude.

Well I’m sticking with myself and the 85% of people here who say that Good Times IS a spinoff of Maude.

OK, I know we're in the minority. :lol:

OK, I know we're in the minority. :lol:
Well, just sayin’, not all the time, but usually, when most of the people agree on something and there’s only a small amount of people who disagree, doesn’t that say something?

Well, just sayin’, not all the time, but usually, when most of the people agree on something and there’s only a small amount of people who disagree, doesn’t that say something?

It does say something, but still, I'm sticking with Sol and the other few. No matter what, I still loved GT until John Amos left.

It does say something, but still, I'm sticking with Sol and the other few. No matter what, I still loved GT until John Amos left.
Yes, going off topic from this “debate” for a second, but you can obviously see a steep decline in the show with his absence and it just gets worse as they try to fill the void but it just didn’t work.

Yes, going off topic from this “debate” for a second, but you can obviously see a steep decline in the show with his absence and it just gets worse as they try to fill the void but it just didn’t work.

In my opinion, John Amos was the best actor on the show. It just wasn't Good Times without him. The lame attempt to replace him with Carl was stupid but once they did it, they should not have acted like he never existed when Florida came back from AZ. They should have explained Carl's absence instead of trying to rewrite history. He sucked but he did exist. I thought it was very insulting to the viewers to pretend he never married Florida.

In my opinion, John Amos was the best actor on the show. It just wasn't Good Times without him. The lame attempt to replace him with Carl was stupid but once they did it, they should not have acted like he never existed when Florida came back from AZ. They should have explained Carl's absence instead of trying to rewrite history. He sucked but he did exist. I thought it was very insulting to the viewers to pretend he never married Florida.
I think I heard on an unedited CBS episode of Good Times it was implied that Carl had died. I liked Carl but yeah, he wasn’t anything like James.