What roles could Lisa Whelchel have done had she not left Hollywood - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

TMC · 08-30-2018, 06:27 AM

...for a good 20 years (to get married and have kids) after The Facts of Life ended. I know that she claims that she was asked to read for the role of Rachel on Friends (to clarify, Lisa wasn't directly offered the role before Jennifer Aniston, she was only asked to audition).

I wonder if Lisa got somewhat typecast as Blair Warner. What I mean is, she played a decidedly wholesome, clean-cut if rather snobby and prudish woman for so long (even though when TFOL started, Blair was ironically, much more promiscuous and rebellious acting) for so long and so well, that it would've been too jarring to see her stray too far from that image.

Gemini_89 · 08-30-2018, 08:38 PM

Somebody said before that she is good with physical comedy and I agree. It's probably why she preferred the later seasons while most preferred the earlier seasons. There was a lot of physical comedy/less serious storylines in the later ones and she was pretty good in it. I think she's pretty weak with the dramatic acting though. She's not good like Nancy Mckeon or Kim Fields. And I heard some criticism with Kim Field's "bad acting" and how she "overacts" but I think she's the 3rd best actress behind Nancy Mckeon and Molly Ringwald imo. That's why she was successful on Living Single and the show is still talked about and relevant today.

Impressions · 09-01-2018, 12:53 PM

I think she would have focused on comedy too. I will agree her dramatic skills are very weak, I re-watched Less than Perfect, which was probably her most dramatic performance and it felt like a bad PSA for sleep deprivation.

I think she would have done well as a supporting character on a sitcom in the '90s but I doubt she could carry her own show, like the proposed spin-off in the series finale. I don't think her as Rachel on Friends would have worked anyway, she was far too conservative for that show.

king of comedy · 09-01-2018, 02:40 PM

If she had been on Friends instead of Jennifer Aniston, it would have been a very differant show.

RetroGuy2000 · 09-03-2018, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by king of comedy

If she had been on Friends instead of Jennifer Aniston, it would have been a very differant show.

Definitely. Way different. No sex between Paulo and Rachel. Or Ross and Rachel. or Rachel and... anyone. And Rachel would have been missing in any episode where two characters had sex outside of marriage. Which... I think was a lot of episodes. I won't say most episodes... but maybe half of the episodes?

Smartboy · 09-03-2018, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

Definitely. Way different. No sex between Paulo and Rachel. Or Ross and Rachel. or Rachel and... anyone. And Rachel would have been missing in any episode where two characters had sex outside of marriage. Which... I think was a lot of episodes. I won't say most episodes... but maybe half of the episodes?

Those are some very good points!

RetroGuy2000 · 09-03-2018, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smartboy

Those are some very good points!

Yeah, can you imagine a Friends with Rachel in only, like, half of the episodes? It would be, like, 5.5 friends instead of six.

Int. Scene: Central Perk:

Ross: [Sipping coffee] Where's Rachel?

Monica: Oh, she's got another... regatta gala.

Ross: That's the third one this week!

Smartboy · 09-03-2018, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

Yeah, can you imagine a Friends with Rachel in only, like, half of the episodes? It would be, like, 5.5 friends instead of six.

Int. Scene: Central Perk:

Ross: [Sipping coffee] Where's Rachel?

Monica: Oh, she's got another... regatta gala.

Ross: That's the third one this week!

That all sounds very amusing my friend!

RetroGuy2000 · 09-03-2018, 11:51 PM

Thanks! I amused myself with that one, too, actually. Just the idea of Lisa Whelchel skipping so many episodes, and the writers having to cover with goofy excuses makes me smile.

TMC · 05-28-2019, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by king of comedy

If she had been on Friends instead of Jennifer Aniston, it would have been a very differant show.

I wonder of Lisa's name was brought up because Nancy McKeon almost played Monica. She was (according to Warren Littlefield's book Top of the Rock) NBC and Warner Bros.' top choice but they allowed the creators to make the final call. Marta Kauffman chose Courteney Cox because according to Kauffman "Because we were casting an ensemble, there was something appealing about not casting Nancy McKeon."

RetroGuy2000 · 05-28-2019, 02:52 AM

I can imagine Nancy McKeon as Monica, but I CANNOT imagine Lisa as Rachel. Just does not compute.

'80sSitcoms · 05-28-2019, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMC

She was (according to Warren Littlefield's book Top of the Rock) NBC and Warner Bros.' top choice

Well, according to Warren Littlefield's memory, there were also "10, 12 girls" on that first season of "Facts"!

RetroGuy2000 · 05-28-2019, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by '80sSitcoms

Well, according to Warren Littlefield's memory, there were also "10, 12 girls" on that first season of "Facts"!

Well, this information didn't involve counting, so he might actually be right this time.

'80sSitcoms · 05-28-2019, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

Well, this information didn't involve counting, so he might actually be right this time.

TMC · 12-04-2021, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMC

I wonder of Lisa's name was brought up because Nancy McKeon almost played Monica. She was (according to Warren Littlefield's book Top of the Rock) NBC and Warner Bros.' top choice but they allowed the creators to make the final call. Marta Kauffman chose Courteney Cox because according to Kauffman "Because we were casting an ensemble, there was something appealing about not casting Nancy McKeon."

I don't entirely understand what Marta Kauffman means when she says that there's something appealing about not casting Nancy McKeon. I hope that I'm not taking what she said out of context, but was wondering if that was supposed to be an affront about what she perceived to be about Nancy's skills/abilities as an actress.

Was Kauffman uncomfortable with casting Nancy because she was at the time "too recognizable", having been one of the leads of a long running NBC series and she ostensibly wanted unknowns? And if Nancy was cast, she would've by default or design, be pushed to the "front and center". But on the same token, The Facts of Life in itself, was an ensemble show about a group of friends, so that comment of Kauffman's doesn't hold much weight.

08-30-2018, 06:27 AM	#1
TMC Member Forum Idol Join Date: Jan 09, 2001 Posts: 126,334	What roles could Lisa Whelchel have done had she not left Hollywood ...for a good 20 years (to get married and have kids) after The Facts of Life ended. I know that she claims that she was asked to read for the role of Rachel on Friends (to clarify, Lisa wasn't directly offered the role before Jennifer Aniston, she was only asked to audition). I wonder if Lisa got somewhat typecast as Blair Warner. What I mean is, she played a decidedly wholesome, clean-cut if rather snobby and prudish woman for so long (even though when TFOL started, Blair was ironically, much more promiscuous and rebellious acting) for so long and so well, that it would've been too jarring to see her stray too far from that image.

08-30-2018, 08:38 PM	#2
Gemini_89 Member Senior Member Join Date: Jul 09, 2009 Location: Unknown Posts: 1,294	Somebody said before that she is good with physical comedy and I agree. It's probably why she preferred the later seasons while most preferred the earlier seasons. There was a lot of physical comedy/less serious storylines in the later ones and she was pretty good in it. I think she's pretty weak with the dramatic acting though. She's not good like Nancy Mckeon or Kim Fields. And I heard some criticism with Kim Field's "bad acting" and how she "overacts" but I think she's the 3rd best actress behind Nancy Mckeon and Molly Ringwald imo. That's why she was successful on Living Single and the show is still talked about and relevant today.

09-01-2018, 12:53 PM	#3
Impressions She died the way she lived Forum 4000 Club Member Join Date: May 08, 2002 Posts: 4,640	I think she would have focused on comedy too. I will agree her dramatic skills are very weak, I re-watched Less than Perfect, which was probably her most dramatic performance and it felt like a bad PSA for sleep deprivation. I think she would have done well as a supporting character on a sitcom in the '90s but I doubt she could carry her own show, like the proposed spin-off in the series finale. I don't think her as Rachel on Friends would have worked anyway, she was far too conservative for that show.

09-01-2018, 02:40 PM	#4
king of comedy Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Aug 31, 2012 Location: New Jersey Posts: 5,140	If she had been on Friends instead of Jennifer Aniston, it would have been a very differant show.

09-03-2018, 11:51 PM	#9
RetroGuy2000 Julie,Julie Anne,&Felice 4Ever Forum Star Join Date: Dec 27, 2013 Posts: 16,914	Thanks! I amused myself with that one, too, actually. Just the idea of Lisa Whelchel skipping so many episodes, and the writers having to cover with goofy excuses makes me smile.

05-28-2019, 02:52 AM	#11
RetroGuy2000 Julie,Julie Anne,&Felice 4Ever Forum Star Join Date: Dec 27, 2013 Posts: 16,914	I can imagine Nancy McKeon as Monica, but I CANNOT imagine Lisa as Rachel. Just does not compute.