View Today's Active Threads (No Chit Chat/Chit Chat Only) / View New Posts (No Chit Chat/Chit Chat Only) / Mark All Boards Read / Chit Chat Board
Good Times links and theme songs at Sitcoms Online / Good Times Photo Gallery
![]() |
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Member
Forum Junkie
Join Date: Aug 17, 2002
Posts: 99,065
|
After 11/8/78, the show ratings looked to really take a sudden dive to the bottom because after 11/8/78, the show was moved to Wednesdays, then after two Wednesday night airings, the show was moved back to saturday on dec 13, 1978. After Two Saturday Night airings, the show was moved back to Wednesday Night on Jan 3, 1979-lol Then after 1/3/79, the show went on a 5 month hiatus for some reason instead of just being cancelled and picked back up in May.
Why did the producers think the show was still going to have viewers after being on a 5 month Hiatus? |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
Member
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 30, 2004
Posts: 2,180
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
Member
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 19, 2003
Location: Somerset, Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 951
|
Quote:
One thing is for certain, Good Times should have and could have lasted a lot longer than it did if the network (and not the show itself) hadn't screwed around with it. Even with the loss of John Amos, there was still potential there, even though I'd prefer to have had John stay with the cast. Seems to me to be a no-brainer that too much pre-empting and switching of a show's line-up will bring down the ratings and isn't necessarily a reflection of a show's so-called diminished quality, but I'm not a TV station exec, so what do I know? Ed |
|
|
__________________
save water... shower with a friend...
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
Member
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 30, 2004
Posts: 2,180
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
Member
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 19, 2003
Location: Somerset, Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 951
|
Quote:
But I think there were still more stories to tell... Ed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | |
|
Member
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 30, 2004
Posts: 2,180
|
Quote:
One thing that they could've done was give Willona or Michael a steady romantic interest or do more with Michael's character. I think the fact that they left the viewer wanting more is part of this series' charm. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
Member
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 19, 2003
Location: Somerset, Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 951
|
Quote:
And surely James' family could have been used more instead of just his father. Just because James was deceased doesn't mean his family would stop having anything to do with his wife and kids. And how about Penny? Couldn't someone else from her family, besides her abusive mother, want to raise Penny? Isn't there a potential story there, that someone would think they're better suited to raise Penny than Willona is simply because they're of Penny's blood? And dare I say it, how about if the Evans/Willona had some of that good luck that they experienced in the finale much earlier in the series? Wouldn't the show be just as entertaining even if the Evans/Willona wasn't always down on their luck? I'm not saying it would've been better or preferable, but surely stories could be told of their trying to adjust to some good fortune. I think the Evans' appeal was attributed to a lot more than just their being poor. In fact, I think whenever something good did happen to one of the family members, it was too predictable that somewhere, somehow things were going to go wrong. We fans would've loved these people even if they weren't poorer than the poor people. This is just off the top of my head. A lot more could have been done if handled correctly and all without the show feeling tired or old. All that was needed was a little more effort and care. But again, I haven't seen seasons 4 - 6 in over 10 years, so maybe by the time I view them I'll agree with your assessment that it was time to end the show. But until then, I'll stick with my points... Ed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 | |
|
Member
Forum Junkie
Join Date: Aug 17, 2002
Posts: 99,065
|
Quote:
If the show had picked up where it left off in season 4, then it probably would have lasted to 1981/82. But i think viewers were very confused that Florida was set to Marry to Carl at the close of season 4 and then was no longer on the show at the start of season 5. And to make things worse, a 10 year old is added to the cast. Viewers in the fall of 77 was probably like "WHAT THE HELL? after seeing the first episode of the 77-78 season-LOL. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
Member
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 30, 2004
Posts: 2,180
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 | |
|
Member
Forum Junkie
Join Date: Aug 17, 2002
Posts: 99,065
|
Quote:
Season 4 was mediocre, season 5 and 6 was beyond mediocre |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 | |
|
Member
Moderator
Forum Fanatic Join Date: Apr 04, 2000
Location: New York, New York, U.S.A.
Posts: 10,857
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 | |
|
Member
Forum Junkie
Join Date: Aug 17, 2002
Posts: 99,065
|
Quote:
And I personally didn't care to have episodes focused around Willona. It didn't make sense becasuse the Willona character was so minor in seasons 1-3 and to make it her show was so crazy. That's like Archie and Edith leaving all in the FAmily and the show being centered around Gloria-lol |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|