If Bea hadn't left the show in 1992.... - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

browneyes106 · 05-01-2009, 04:58 PM

How much longer do you think show would have lasted if Bea didn't leave in 1992?

I think it would lasted another year or two.

Mr. Television · 05-01-2009, 05:00 PM

Probably one more year. The show finally fell out of the top 20 during it's last season and NBC's Saturday lineup was falling apart.

sodalake · 05-02-2009, 12:46 AM

I think it would have lasted at least another year or two because Empty Nest was still running (and ran until 1995) and Golden Girls usually topped it in the ratings.

Part of the reason Golden Girls fell out of the top 20 in its last season was because NBC moved it out of its longtime 9pm/8pm CT timeslot and moved it an hour earlier at 8pm/7pm CT.

I think it would have been better to continue Golden Girls without Bea and adding a new roommate than to have done Golden Palace. Does anyone know why Golden Palace wasn't on NBC on Saturday nights instead of it being on CBS?

Mr. Television · 05-02-2009, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sodalake

I think it would have lasted at least another year or two because Empty Nest was still running (and ran until 1995) and Golden Girls usually topped it in the ratings.

Part of the reason Golden Girls fell out of the top 20 in its last season was because NBC moved it out of its longtime 9pm/8pm CT timeslot and moved it an hour earlier at 8pm/7pm CT.

I think it would have been better to continue Golden Girls without Bea and adding a new roommate than to have done Golden Palace. Does anyone know why Golden Palace wasn't on NBC on Saturday nights instead of it being on CBS?

I'm not 100% sure but I think I read that CBS guaranteed it a full season of 22 episodes.

FBH75 · 05-02-2009, 12:18 PM

I would have loved to seen it run another couple of years. I think it would still have been a very popular show even in seasons 8 & 9 if it had continued to air.

80sTrivia · 05-03-2009, 07:50 AM

I would say it could have gone on at least three more seasons. The show had a lot of life left in it and didn't jump the shark when Bea decided to leave the show...

browneyes106 · 05-04-2009, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sodalake

I think it would have lasted at least another year or two because Empty Nest was still running (and ran until 1995) and Golden Girls usually topped it in the ratings.

Part of the reason Golden Girls fell out of the top 20 in its last season was because NBC moved it out of its longtime 9pm/8pm CT timeslot and moved it an hour earlier at 8pm/7pm CT.

I think it would have been better to continue Golden Girls without Bea and adding a new roommate than to have done Golden Palace. Does anyone know why Golden Palace wasn't on NBC on Saturday nights instead of it being on CBS?

I agree the show could have gone with a new roommate or maybe just Blanche, Rose and Sophia living together.

HuntingtonM15 · 05-04-2009, 01:56 AM

I think the show had the potential to go on for at least another two seasons. I wish it would have happened.

Scoobiedoo30 · 05-04-2009, 02:40 AM

I say the show would have Lasted 1995

kravitzfan12 · 05-04-2009, 02:46 PM

Creatively, I think the show could have lasted a few more years. But in terms of ratings, I feel like it could have survived only one more year.

I'm glad that the remaining cast chose to do a spin-off versus continuing the series... I wouldn't feel right calling the show The Golden Girls without having all four of the same women there...

If they kept it just the three of them that would have been a fine continuation... but I think it was smart the way they ended the show and continued in a spin-off.

PunkyP0WER · 06-27-2009, 07:20 AM

Creatively speaking, I'd say one more year. I think the quality was still there and there was still a story left to tell. However, even if Bea had stayed on the series was doomed anyway. By the time GG entered its last season NBC was undergoing a major overhaul in regards to their shows that were targeted to an older audience(*cough* 50 and up *cough*) and they wanted to shed their image as the "old" network. If you'll remember at this time NBC also canceled 'Matlock' in 1992 (which ABC picked up) and 'In The Heat of The Night' in 1992(which CBS picked up) and is also why they passed on 'The Golden Palace' and let CBS have it.

The only reason 'Empty Nest' was spared at this time was because there was some younger cast members on the show, like Dinah Manoff, Park Overall and Marsha Warfield whom they added to help retool it. They also moved them out of the hospital setting and into a "hip" inner city clinic. The initial premise of the show changed as well, originally it was about Harry adjusting to life as a widower however by the last couple seasons he seemed to become just the sounding board for Carol and Laverne's problems, whom the shows focus seemed to move on.

This was really the start of the 'Friends' era of NBC. Though it would be another 2 years before 'Friends' debuted, that is the direction the network was moving in. Johnny Carson ending his 'Tonight Show' tenure seemed to usher in a new, younger, hipper era at the peacock network. Jay Leno took over in 1992 and with 'Seinfield' hitting its stride at this time, NBC saw the opportunity for change. So you see 1992 was a year of change at NBC and Bea's departure was just a formality for GG

McGillicuddy · 06-27-2009, 09:30 PM

I'm just curious, though I bought this up earlier, when they brought in Debbie Reynolds 2 years previously to replace Dorothy when she was about to remarry Stan, were they testing the idea of another actress coming on board, and why wasn't she considered to come on board later for an 8th season of GG when Bea Arthur actually did leave?

GoldenGirlsFan92 · 06-28-2009, 01:41 AM

I think it would have lasted one more year.

mrcashmanmiller · 11-08-2009, 11:39 AM

Bea Arthur did the right thing by leaving the show after the seventh season. So many times shows drag on an on and plots are beaten to death. Like Frasier which lasted eleven seasons. Way too long. Remember Bea wanted to leave after the fifth season. But thankfully she signed on for seasons six and seven. Five seasons wouldn't have been enough, however seven was plenty. If you're a fan of a show that lasted as long as Frasier (11 seasons), Cheers (11 seasons), Friends (10 seasons), etc. didn't the plots and story lines seem more desperate and beaten to death after a while. Trust me what more could have been written for this show after seven seasons. And as stated before in 1992 NBC was undergoing a major face-lift. Now we're in 2009 and it still hasn't recovered from that move. So, basically I feel that seven golden seasons was plenty, not too many, not too few, but just right!

disdam · 05-01-2010, 04:25 PM

i think 7 seasons was enough, look at the simpsons its been on since 1989 (ok 1990, first epsiode was in december 89) and seriously its time to can the simpsons, and this is coming from a long time fan of it. some times its good for a show to leave at the top of its game before the storylines get dumb, the problem with the simpsons its too popular for fox to cancel it, its their cash cow pretty much. but it cant go on forever its already been on for 20 years, the storylines started going downhill 10 years ago.

05-01-2009, 04:58 PM	#1
browneyes106 Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Apr 01, 2008 Posts: 6,097	If Bea hadn't left the show in 1992.... How much longer do you think show would have lasted if Bea didn't leave in 1992? I think it would lasted another year or two.

05-01-2009, 05:00 PM	#2
Mr. Television 23 Years at Sitcoms Online Forum Icon Join Date: Jun 06, 2003 Location: Somewhere you're Not Posts: 62,133	Probably one more year. The show finally fell out of the top 20 during it's last season and NBC's Saturday lineup was falling apart.
	__________________ Sonny

05-03-2009, 07:50 AM	#6
80sTrivia Member Forum Celebrity Join Date: May 23, 2002 Posts: 21,715	I would say it could have gone on at least three more seasons. The show had a lot of life left in it and didn't jump the shark when Bea decided to leave the show...
	__________________ Perfect Gift Books for Pop Culture Fanatics: Thank You for Being a Friend: A Golden Girls Trivia Book The Bouquet Residence: A Keeping Up Appearances Trivia Book Cooking With the Golden Girls: Fun & Delicious Recipes from a Hilarious Miami Kitchen Love in the Afternoon: The Ultimate Soap Opera Trivia Book The Last Great Decade: The Ultimate 90s Trivia Book Betty White: A Celebration

05-04-2009, 02:40 AM	#9
Scoobiedoo30 Member Forum Superstar Join Date: Jun 27, 2002 Location: KENNER, LOUISIANA Posts: 27,654	I say the show would have Lasted 1995
	__________________ Who Dat

06-27-2009, 07:20 AM	#11
PunkyP0WER Member Senior Member Join Date: May 23, 2008 Location: MACY*S on 34th St. Posts: 1,908	Creatively speaking, I'd say one more year. I think the quality was still there and there was still a story left to tell. However, even if Bea had stayed on the series was doomed anyway. By the time GG entered its last season NBC was undergoing a major overhaul in regards to their shows that were targeted to an older audience(cough 50 and up cough) and they wanted to shed their image as the "old" network. If you'll remember at this time NBC also canceled 'Matlock' in 1992 (which ABC picked up) and 'In The Heat of The Night' in 1992(which CBS picked up) and is also why they passed on 'The Golden Palace' and let CBS have it. The only reason 'Empty Nest' was spared at this time was because there was some younger cast members on the show, like Dinah Manoff, Park Overall and Marsha Warfield whom they added to help retool it. They also moved them out of the hospital setting and into a "hip" inner city clinic. The initial premise of the show changed as well, originally it was about Harry adjusting to life as a widower however by the last couple seasons he seemed to become just the sounding board for Carol and Laverne's problems, whom the shows focus seemed to move on. This was really the start of the 'Friends' era of NBC. Though it would be another 2 years before 'Friends' debuted, that is the direction the network was moving in. Johnny Carson ending his 'Tonight Show' tenure seemed to usher in a new, younger, hipper era at the peacock network. Jay Leno took over in 1992 and with 'Seinfield' hitting its stride at this time, NBC saw the opportunity for change. So you see 1992 was a year of change at NBC and Bea's departure was just a formality for GG
	__________________ Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to. - Fred Gailey & Doris Walker It was the movie that no one thought would be a hit It was the sleeper a studio had no idea how to sell And its success was even more miraculous because this Christmas present was opened in June! Fred & Doris Gailey FOREVER! That's the magic of *macys**

05-02-2009, 12:46 AM	#3
sodalake Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Jan 02, 2009 Posts: 109	I think it would have lasted at least another year or two because Empty Nest was still running (and ran until 1995) and Golden Girls usually topped it in the ratings. Part of the reason Golden Girls fell out of the top 20 in its last season was because NBC moved it out of its longtime 9pm/8pm CT timeslot and moved it an hour earlier at 8pm/7pm CT. I think it would have been better to continue Golden Girls without Bea and adding a new roommate than to have done Golden Palace. Does anyone know why Golden Palace wasn't on NBC on Saturday nights instead of it being on CBS?

05-02-2009, 12:18 PM	#5
FBH75 Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Apr 09, 2009 Location: Marion, NC Posts: 24	I would have loved to seen it run another couple of years. I think it would still have been a very popular show even in seasons 8 & 9 if it had continued to air.

05-04-2009, 01:56 AM	#8
HuntingtonM15 That Bothers Me Moderator Forum Star Join Date: Jun 20, 2003 Location: Metro Detroit Posts: 11,060	I think the show had the potential to go on for at least another two seasons. I wish it would have happened.

05-04-2009, 02:46 PM	#10
kravitzfan12 Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Jan 16, 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 117	Creatively, I think the show could have lasted a few more years. But in terms of ratings, I feel like it could have survived only one more year. I'm glad that the remaining cast chose to do a spin-off versus continuing the series... I wouldn't feel right calling the show The Golden Girls without having all four of the same women there... If they kept it just the three of them that would have been a fine continuation... but I think it was smart the way they ended the show and continued in a spin-off.

06-27-2009, 09:30 PM	#12
McGillicuddy Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Sep 28, 2002 Posts: 5,179	I'm just curious, though I bought this up earlier, when they brought in Debbie Reynolds 2 years previously to replace Dorothy when she was about to remarry Stan, were they testing the idea of another actress coming on board, and why wasn't she considered to come on board later for an 8th season of GG when Bea Arthur actually did leave?

06-28-2009, 01:41 AM	#13
GoldenGirlsFan92 Member Senior Member Join Date: Dec 21, 2005 Location: Louisana Posts: 2,243	I think it would have lasted one more year.
	__________________ The Golden Girls Seasons 1-7 are out! Buy Dolly Parton's NEW Single on Itunes! VOTE FOR "THE GOLDEN PALACE" & "EMPTY NEST" TO COME OUT ON DVD.

11-08-2009, 11:39 AM	#14
mrcashmanmiller Member Forum Hawk Join Date: Nov 08, 2009 Location: Palm Springs Posts: 3	Bea Arthur did the right thing by leaving the show after the seventh season. So many times shows drag on an on and plots are beaten to death. Like Frasier which lasted eleven seasons. Way too long. Remember Bea wanted to leave after the fifth season. But thankfully she signed on for seasons six and seven. Five seasons wouldn't have been enough, however seven was plenty. If you're a fan of a show that lasted as long as Frasier (11 seasons), Cheers (11 seasons), Friends (10 seasons), etc. didn't the plots and story lines seem more desperate and beaten to death after a while. Trust me what more could have been written for this show after seven seasons. And as stated before in 1992 NBC was undergoing a major face-lift. Now we're in 2009 and it still hasn't recovered from that move. So, basically I feel that seven golden seasons was plenty, not too many, not too few, but just right!

05-01-2010, 04:25 PM	#15
disdam Member Occasional Poster Join Date: May 01, 2010 Posts: 16	i think 7 seasons was enough, look at the simpsons its been on since 1989 (ok 1990, first epsiode was in december 89) and seriously its time to can the simpsons, and this is coming from a long time fan of it. some times its good for a show to leave at the top of its game before the storylines get dumb, the problem with the simpsons its too popular for fox to cancel it, its their cash cow pretty much. but it cant go on forever its already been on for 20 years, the storylines started going downhill 10 years ago.