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

[TMC]

Was Season 1 in essence "doomed to fail" in large part because it came out and about at the wrong time? The Facts of Life was a midseason summer replacement for Hello, Larry. When the series got an order for nine more episodes, that were not shown until March 1980. NBC in theory, should have had new episodes ready for the fall, when new shows come out.

And then, when NBC begin showing new episodes again, they were at different days and times, which didn't provide any continuity or regularity for the show. Worst yet, NBC didn't bother to air it before or after its parent show Diff'rent Strokes as an easier means of getting new audience. There were also several weeks at a time were FOL was not shown in the Spring of 1980.

['80sSitcoms]

Originally Posted by TMC

The Facts of Life was a midseason summer replacement for Hello, Larry.

A "midsesason summer replacement"? Was Hello, Larry airing as a summer show?

[80s Dude]

There are more things we now know that we didn't when this thread began. The possible Molly-Mindy conflict, the definite Charlotte-Jenny O'Hara conflict which may explain why somethings happened.

[A.C.]

Originally Posted by valentina warner

Season 1 was without a doubt, the best, and after we lost the LOST GIRLS we also lost the roots where it all began.....

FOREVER SEASON 1!!!!

Yeah, like I always say...it is the TRUE Facts of Life. The one that was created, pitched and eventually bought by the network.

After the revamp it wasn't really the same show at all and once the girls are out of Eastland....well I don't even count those at all.

[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by A.C.

Yeah, like I always say...it is the TRUE Facts of Life. The one that was created, pitched and eventually bought by the network.

After the revamp it wasn't really the same show at all

I love the original premise and the whole first season. The rest of the Eastland years are good, too, but the show kept drifting from concept to concept, and with each reboot, it suffered. The original premise was the best.

[FOL-FAN-ITA]

You know I appreciate more the retooled version but I have nothing against the first season. NBC was in such a hurry for a hit show but they should have stopped and think what to do. I don't think the large cast was the reason the first season failed, several shows back then had a big cast ("The Jeffersons", "The Nanny", "The Cosby Show") and everything was fine. The biggest mistake was the timeslot, if you try to launch a spinoff without its parent show preceding it on the schedule, the results could be a disaster. And I agree with TMC, there wasn't a continuity between episodes during the second part of the season. The writing was okay but they often used Blair, Tootie and Sue Ann.

[FOL-FAN-ITA]

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

I love the original premise and the whole first season. The rest of the Eastland years are good, too, but the show kept drifting from concept to concept, and with each reboot, it suffered. The original premise was the best.

I agree that the show kept drifting from concept to concept, starting with season 5.

Season 5: Eastland is no longer the main setting, Mrs. Garrett has now this gourmet food shop and the action takes place in an entirely different place

Season 7: the setting changes again, nearly every character changed his personality and there are new faces in town

Season 8: the star of the show is no longer the star, her sister replaces her and the four Eastland girls are no longer Eastland students

[valentina warner]

Sorry to have to disagree with you once again FOL FAN ITA, but in my opinion the writing was outstanding and very authentic in season 1 (something i cannot say for the later season though): the story line was highly entertaining and the characters very true to their personality and traits.
In season 1, our 7 girls had each their unique personality (and not that nonsense they did from season 7 onward to turn our main stars into real PODS).

That's all i have to say.....

[FOL-FAN-ITA]

Originally Posted by valentina warner

Sorry to have to disagree with you once again FOL FAN ITA, but in my opinion the writing was outstanding and very authentic in season 1 (something i cannot say for the later season though): the story line was highly entertaining and the characters very true to their personality and traits.
In season 1, our 7 girls had each their unique personality (and not that nonsense they did from season 7 onward to turn our main stars into real PODS).

That's okay . But I didn't say the writing in season 1 wasn't good, it was okay, nothing wrong, except for the fact that that the show became "The Blair, Tootie and Sue Ann Show" towards the end of the year. In my opinion, the writing was at its worst during seasons 7 and 9, with the exception of season 8 that had very good stories for the most part

['80sSitcoms]

Originally Posted by FOL-FAN-ITA

That's okay . But I didn't say the writing in season 1 wasn't good, it was okay, nothing wrong, except for the fact that that the show became "The Blair, Tootie and Sue Ann Show" towards the end of the year. In my opinion, the writing was at its worst during seasons 7 and 9, with the exception of season 8 that had very good stories for the most part

Yes, the problem with the writing in the first season is that wasn't balanced. There was no cohesive focus.

[TMC]

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.

Also, didn't it seem like Blair, Natalie, and Tootie from the first season, were just better written characters? Therefore it in insight, became even more obvious that the "right people" were kept.

In the case of Nancy, didn't she at the end of the day, feel like such a boring, one note character who was only good for pining for Roger? Cindy meanwhile, felt like a poor man's (or poor woman's in this case) Jo without the rebellious edge.

And Molly was just a mouthpiece for feminist lectures. She was like a mini Julia Sugarbaker from Designing Women before Designing Women was even created.

Sue Ann was probably the most developed or well rounded one of the "forgotten girls" of Season 1, but didn't she still come off as just a more down to earth version of Blair?

[Fallon97]

The first season is my least favorite, but I liked it.

[Dr. Thong]

Originally Posted by '80sSitcoms

Yes, the problem with the writing in the first season is that wasn't balanced. There was no cohesive focus.

Had this been an hour show, they could have made it work with all the characters and given them equal screen time.

But as it was a 24 minute show (including opening and end credits), it made more sense to whittle down the girls to a group of four.

I imagine it had to be hard on the girls who were let go, especially when they made cameos afterwards.

[80s Dude]

Originally Posted by Dr. Thong

Had this been an hour show, they could have made it work with all the characters and given them equal screen time.

But as it was a 24 minute show (including opening and end credits), it made more sense to whittle down the girls to a group of four.

I imagine it had to be hard on the girls who were let go, especially when they made cameos afterwards.

Many half hour comedies had large casts and were successful.

['80sSitcoms]

Originally Posted by 80s Dude

Many half hour comedies had large casts and were successful.

Yup. Cheers, Head of the Class...