Were There Any 'Positive' Things About the First Season?

[Dr. Thong]

Originally Posted by QTMcWhiskers

Same here. The continuity was needed, and it wasn't the actors' fault. The show was just too overly crammed with characters - which can be good or bad in terms of setting up ensemble casts to draw story ideas with. Usually shows start with a few then add more characters to find new directions for the show, rarely the other way around.

Okay, maybe the show was crammed with too many characters. I think they still could've kept one or two of the ones who were axed and added them to the classic quartet of Blair, Jo, Natalie & Tootie.

[TV Guy]

The best thing about the first season is that it was only 13 episodes. Molly, Cindy, and Nancy were forgettable, and that girl who played Sue Ann was a TERRIBLE actress. Kudos to the producers for allowing some continuity by having those girls recur for a while.

[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by Dr. Thong

Okay, maybe the show was crammed with too many characters. I think they still could've kept one or two of the ones who were axed and added them to the classic quartet of Blair, Jo, Natalie & Tootie.

I never bought into the "too many characters" thing.

I recently binge-watched the first three seasons of "Head of the Class". That show started with ten students, a teacher, principal, and vice-principal. Then they added more students, both recurring and regular roles.

By my count, "Head of the Class" had 15 actors plus recurring roles by the end. So "The Facts of Life" having seven girls really shouldn't have been a problem.

['80sSitcoms]

Originally Posted by TV Guy

The best thing about the first season is that it was only 13 episodes. Molly, Cindy, and Nancy were forgettable, and that girl who played Sue Ann was a TERRIBLE actress. Kudos to the producers for allowing some continuity by having those girls recur for a while.

I agree Julie Piekarski was a TERRIBLE actress---overall. She did have some surprisingly golden moments, but by and large she was awful. Every time I see Charlotte in an interview or a documentary say they were "all such talented girls" I think of Julie P. and I just want to ask Charlotte, "Are you kidding me?" I wonder if she just forgot how bad Julie was, or if she just wants to be nice to them all?

I disagree Molly and Cindy were forgettable, as they had such specific individual characteristics which differentiated them among the group. I would say Nancy was forgettable (I don't want her to be, the writing just wasn't there for her), but once they invented invisible Roger, that gave her a "hook"---and it even garnered her her own plot in a season 2 episode!

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

I never bought into the "too many characters" thing.

I recently binge-watched the first three seasons of "Head of the Class". That show started with ten students, a teacher, principal, and vice-principal. Then they added more students, both recurring and regular roles.

EXACTLY. That is the first place my mind goes to when producers or Charlotte or the girls claim there were "too many girls"---what about Head of the Class? What about Cheers? That one started with just five credited cast members in the opening in season 1 (John Ratzenberger was not credited in the opening at first), and it fleshed out to eight credited cast members in season 10. Perhaps if FOL had taken that route---begun with a few girls, and added a few more along the way---it could have ended with a larger cast that really worked. Still, the way they did it, starting with "a gaggle of girls", it easily could have worked, and should have. As dear as season 1 is to my heart, it's just a shame that the writing wasn't balanced enough to really serve all of the characters.

That said, I miss Miss Mahoney. If only she had at least stayed on for all of season 1, if not longer. In those first four episodes I love seeing that special relating and camaraderie that Mrs. Garrett has with a fellow woman. Once Miss Mahoney is gone, Mrs. Garrett never has that special relating of "woman-to-woman" ever again (outside of a few guest starring women). I think that was a real shame.

[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by '80sSitcoms

I agree Julie Piekarski was a TERRIBLE actress---overall. She did have some surprisingly golden moments, but by and large she was awful. Every time I see Charlotte in an interview or a documentary say they were "all such talented girls" I think of Julie P. and I just want to ask Charlotte, "Are you kidding me?" I wonder if she just forgot how bad Julie was, or if she just wants to be nice to them all?

Julie was fine in "Running" and "Dope", less so in "IQ", but better than Molly in "Molly's Holiday". Molly wasn't ready yet for her own episode.

I disagree Molly and Cindy were forgettable, as they had such specific individual characteristics which differentiated them among the group. I would say Nancy was forgettable (I don't want her to be, the writing just wasn't there for her), but once they invented invisible Roger, that gave her a "hook"---and it even garnered her her own plot in a season 2 episode!

None of the Lost Girls were "forgettable", or we wouldn't be discussing them 38 years later! And they certainly wouldn't have been nominated for a TV Land Award in the category of "Favorite Characters Who Went Missing".

Certainly, chopping Nancy's parts down, as they did, didn't help Felice, but even her parts as "on the phone girl" were memorable. And she did great in "Gossip".

EXACTLY. That is the first place my mind goes to when producers or Charlotte or the girls claim there were "too many girls"---what about Head of the Class?

Yes. And people claim that the show couldn't have been done successfully with that many actors, when we know it could have... because other shows did just fine.

What about Cheers? That one started with just five credited cast members in the opening in season 1 (John Ratzenberger was not credited in the opening at first), and it fleshed out to eight credited cast members in season 10. Perhaps if FOL had taken that route---begun with a few girls, and added a few more along the way---it could have ended with a larger cast that really worked. Still, the way they did it, starting with "a gaggle of girls", it easily could have worked, and should have. As dear as season 1 is to my heart, it's just a shame that the writing wasn't balanced enough to really serve all of the characters.

They could have thrown Nancy a bone. Did she really need to be on the phone 24/7? Couldn't they have given her a line in the fitness center in "Running"? Why on earth was Blair in the stables in "Flash Flood"? She's from Manhattan!

That said, I miss Miss Mahoney. If only she had at least stayed on for all of season 1, if not longer. In those first four episodes I love seeing that special relating and camaraderie that Mrs. Garrett has with a fellow woman. Once Miss Mahoney is gone, Mrs. Garrett never has that special relating of "woman-to-woman" ever again (outside of a few guest starring women). I think that was a real shame.

You raise a good point. If Mrs. G had had another mature actress to play off of, she might have stayed on the show longer. Charlotte's role gradually decreased as the years went along, and she has said in some past interviews that she felt the show wasn't about her any more. (I know she also said she had health issues, but that isn't cited as much).

['80sSitcoms]

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

Julie was fine in "Running" and "Dope", less so in "IQ", but better than Molly in "Molly's Holiday". Molly wasn't ready yet for her own episode.

I know you're such a Julie P. champ, which is why I feel a little guilty anytime I criticize her acting ability (or inability at times), but I can't help but be honest with how I feel (blame Mrs. Garrett's life lessons, haha). She does do pretty well in those episodes, but she's so inconsistent that you can't say she's a good actress all throughout one entire episode. All the other girls, yes, but not Julie P.

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

They could have thrown Nancy a bone. Did she really need to be on the phone 24/7? Couldn't they have given her a line in the fitness center in "Running"? Why on earth was Blair in the stables in "Flash Flood"? She's from Manhattan!

Haha, good point, but maybe they lived near outskirts enough that the Warners had a horse farm? Or something, lol.

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

You raise a good point. If Mrs. G had had another mature actress to play off of, she might have stayed on the show longer. Charlotte's role gradually decreased as the years went along, and she has said in some past interviews that she felt the show wasn't about her any more. (I know she also said she had health issues, but that isn't cited as much).

Yeah, whenever I see her chummy with Miss Mahoney---particularly in Mrs. Garrett's room, in woman-to-woman scenes---I just wish so hard our Emily could stick around, lol. It's a little surprising they never gave Mrs. Garrett another woman to play off of, such as another teacher, or a neighbor, or something.

[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by '80sSitcoms

I know you're such a Julie P. champ, which is why I feel a little guilty anytime I criticize her acting ability (or inability at times), but I can't help but be honest with how I feel (blame Mrs. Garrett's life lessons, haha). She does do pretty well in those episodes, but she's so inconsistent that you can't say she's a good actress all throughout one entire episode. All the other girls, yes, but not Julie P.

Oh, don't feel guilty! Both the Julies were magnificent, but I don't fault anyone who feels otherwise, even the Nancy McKeon people, who tend to minimize the Lost Girls (Nancy herself never does, and always speaks highly of them).

Haha, good point, but maybe they lived near outskirts enough that the Warners had a horse farm? Or something, lol.

It's just an example, maybe the first, of the writers shoehorning Blair into scenes where she doesn't belong. Other people have mentioned how there's no way Blair should have been bunking with the other three girls after graduation, and that's true. These scenes don't work because of what we know of Blair as a character.

Nancy, Cindy, or Sue Ann should have been on that horse.

Yeah, whenever I see her chummy with Miss Mahoney---particularly in Mrs. Garrett's room, in woman-to-woman scenes---I just wish so hard our Emily could stick around, lol. It's a little surprising they never gave Mrs. Garrett another woman to play off of, such as another teacher, or a neighbor, or something.

Yeah, the lack of teachers at Eastland was a little bizarre. I think I can just about count the faculty on one hand.

['80sSitcoms]

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

Oh, don't feel guilty! Both the Julies were magnificent, but I don't fault anyone who feels otherwise, even the Nancy McKeon people, who tend to minimize the Lost Girls (Nancy herself never does, and always speaks highly of them).

Personally I think Julie Anne was way "magnificenter", lol.

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

It's just an example, maybe the first, of the writers shoehorning Blair into scenes where she doesn't belong. Other people have mentioned how there's no way Blair should have been bunking with the other three girls after graduation, and that's true. These scenes don't work because of what we know of Blair as a character.

Although, after graduation, those girls were Blair's closest friends, and the sisters she never had (she never had that Eve Plumb character in my FOL canon, haha). And maybe she was vulnerable about that, and had Mrs. Garrett as her 2nd mother, and was in a way too scared to leave yet. I guess I like to reconcile it because it happened on camera that she did stay, lol.


[QUOTE=RetroGuy2000Nancy, Cindy, or Sue Ann should have been on that horse.[/quote]

Yeah, all three would have been naturals to be on a horse!

[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by '80sSitcoms

Personally I think Julie Anne was way "magnificenter", lol.

The thing about Julie Anne is that she could have gone on to do anything. Her film and TV pedigree covered a range from drama to comedy. I wish she would have gone the Molly Ringwald route.

Although, after graduation, those girls were Blair's closest friends, and the sisters she never had (she never had that Eve Plumb character in my FOL canon, haha).

It is weird, because I don't think anyone in Blair's family even mentioned her ever again. You'd expect them to say something like, "How's Meg doing these days?" But it never happens.

But I think it's funny that Jan Brady was finally the oldest sister!

['80sSitcoms]

Yes, I would love to have seen Julie Anne take Hollywood by storm!

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

It is weird, because I don't think anyone in Blair's family even mentioned her ever again. You'd expect them to say something like, "How's Meg doing these days?" But it never happens.

That really annoys me on sitcoms, when suddenly out of the blue a close relative is mentioned who was never mentioned before nor is ever mentioned again: "Hey, for this one episode let's invent a brother just so we can have this plot, then we'll never use him again." (that one happened on Designing Women when suddenly Julia and Suzanne have a half-brother who only exists in one episode)

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

But I think it's funny that Jan Brady was finally the oldest sister!

Haha!

[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by '80sSitcoms

Yes, I would love to have seen Julie Anne take Hollywood by storm!

With her background, she definitely could have. But I suppose she was pretty discouraged.

That really annoys me on sitcoms, when suddenly out of the blue a close relative is mentioned who was never mentioned before nor is ever mentioned again: "Hey, for this one episode let's invent a brother just so we can have this plot, then we'll never use him again." (that one happened on Designing Women when suddenly Julia and Suzanne have a half-brother who only exists in one episode)

I don't think I saw that episode. But I know exactly what you mean. Golden Girls was terrible about that, too. That show did that so much that I have no idea how many "children" they even have.

['80sSitcoms]

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

I don't think I saw that episode.

See?? Because he only existed in the confines of that one episode! Season 2 episode 15, "Oh, Brother".

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

I don't think I saw that episode. But I know exactly what you mean. Golden Girls was terrible about that, too. That show did that so much that I have no idea how many "children" they even have.

I don't think GG was very bad about that. They were very bad about consistency, yes, but not about inventing an immediate family member who was only referenced or seen in one episode and never again. There were times though, such as Rose's sister Lily, and her rotten sister Holly (I really dislike how in that episode Rose's friends believe her stranger of a sister instead of her, one of their best friends and roommates!), and Blanche offering to give Dorothy one of her sons if she can keep her special beach towel, lol. At least other times the girls mention having multiple children (and Rose did mention having more than one sibling when reminiscing about family gatherings), but that was about the only time Blanche ever mentioned having any boys, and all of a sudden she has three??

A single appearance or mention of a niece or nephew or a grandchild or cousin I can understand, but when shows purposefully invent an immediate family member for "one time only", that's what gets me.

[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by '80sSitcoms

I don't think GG was very bad about that. They were very bad about consistency, yes, but not about inventing an immediate family member who was only referenced or seen in one episode and never again. [...] but that was about the only time Blanche ever mentioned having any boys, and all of a sudden she has three??

That's what I'm saying!

Back to Facts... at least Blair's younger sister Bailey was mentioned multiple times. I like that continuity. But Meg just vanished. Not cool. Natalie's sister also vanished.

['80sSitcoms]

Oh yeah! Nat's sister! And Tootie's brother! Two other classic examples...Natalie having a sister should have been explored more since Natalie was adopted into that family, but by season 2 it seemed as if she were an only child. And Tootie, there was an entire episode built all around her brother Marshall whom she ADORED and was ECSTATIC about seeing, yet it was NEVER mentioned outside of that episode that Tootie was anything but an only child. Ugh! If they had made Marshal a favorite cousin instead of an immediate brother I wouldn't have had nearly this big a problem with this, lol.

[BigManMike]

Julie Piekarski was very pretty but she wasn't that good of an actress. She later appeared in an episode of Three's Company. Molly Ringwald was much better on the Breakfast Club than on FOL. And the other two weren't that great either. The first season was definitely my least favorite although I will still watch it. Thank goodness they got rid of those four and brought in Jo.