Should Mr Bradley have shown up in “The Little Chill”?

[TV Guy]

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

[80s Dude]

Plus John Lawlor has ties with Cloris Leachman.

[RetroGuy2000]

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

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

[FOL-FAN-ITA]

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

[80s Dude]

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

[valentina warner]

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

[TV Guy]

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

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

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

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

[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by TV Guy

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

[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by 80s Dude

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

Clever! Did he play a politician somewhere?

[80s Dude]

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

Clever! Did he play a politician somewhere?

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

[Lorimar Television]

Idk how well he would fit at a reunion slumber party

[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by 80s Dude

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

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

[80s Dude]

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

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

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

[Impressions]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The episode could've used a writing overhaul.

[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by Impressions

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

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

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

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

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

2) The unnecessary clip show flashbacks

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

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

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

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

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

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

4) The episode was rating's bait

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, as always, I enjoyed reading your rant!