Norman's Choice: James Over J.J.?

[Guy Incognito]

I know this is a crazy theory, but hear me out:

I noticed that J.J. doesn't appear in John Amos' last episode, "The Rent Party". He's said to be in St. Louis and to be returning "next week" (which obviously meant very little since this episode was the season finale), and was hardly mentioned outside of a brief opening scene. And given the tensions on the set, I have to wonder if this was the producers' way of "testing the waters" for a possible Good Times continuation without Jimmie Walker?

Obviously, we know what choice they made in the end, but what if the producers had decided to go in a completely different direction? What if they decided instead to kill J.J. off in St. Louis (or simply have him move away) and develop a new show for Jimmie Walker in the interim? Would the show have survived or maybe even thrived without him? After all, Good Times still would've had a very strong remaining cast, and the comic relief J.J. brought to the table could easily have been provided by Johnny Brown ("Buffalo Butt"). Plus, I think they missed a real golden opporunity by not elevating Helen Martin ("Weepin' Wanda") to regular status, because she was phenomenal in "The Rent Party" with both the comedy and the pathos. Plus, if Jimmie's new show took off, CBS would have had two hit shows instead of one struggling one (because the loss of James Sr. really took Good Times downhill and fast).

I know this idea may sound wild and impractical to some, but what do you guys think?

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by Guy Incognito

I know this is a crazy theory, but hear me out:

I noticed that J.J. doesn't appear in John Amos' last episode, "The Rent Party". He's said to be in St. Louis and to be returning "next week" (which obviously meant very little since this episode was the season finale), and was hardly mentioned outside of a brief opening scene. And given the tensions on the set, I have to wonder if this was the producers' way of "testing the waters" for a possible Good Times continuation without Jimmie Walker?

Obviously, we know what choice they made in the end, but what if the producers had decided to go in a completely different direction? What if they decided instead to kill J.J. off in St. Louis (or simply have him move away) and develop a new show for Jimmie Walker in the interim? Would the show have survived or maybe even thrived without him? After all, Good Times still would've had a very strong remaining cast, and the comic relief J.J. brought to the table could easily have been provided by Johnny Brown ("Buffalo Butt"). Plus, I think they missed a real golden opporunity by not elevating Helen Martin ("Weepin' Wanda") to regular status, because she was phenomenal in "The Rent Party" with both the comedy and the pathos. Plus, if Jimmie's new show took off, CBS would have had two hit shows instead of one struggling one (because the loss of James Sr. really took Good Times downhill and fast).

I know this idea may sound wild and impractical to some, but what do you guys think?

Wanda was a pointless annoying character and only had one bright spot which is when she danced with James at the end. So i don't think her status should have been elevated. And the show would have not missed a beat if James was choosen over J.J. since he was always the real star.

[Bronson]

Years later, producers admitted that killing off James was a mistake. The show did not seem the shame without him.

[comedyfreak]

I like your theory Guy I think it would have worked.

[ThomasE]

Originally Posted by Bronson

Years later, producers admitted that killing off James was a mistake. The show did not seem the shame without him.

To me, it seemed that their greed and pride got the best of them. That is what I am seeing as I read over these old interviews.

[Mr. Television]

Good Times would have died without Jimmie Walker. I know it's not popular now but back then he was the main attraction. ABC thought of doing that with Fonzie on Happy Days and they realized they would have killed the parent show. It was the same thing here. I do think GT was hurt by killing James off but it's easy to see that now.

[lucyandethel]

Originally Posted by Stuck In The '70's

Good Times would have died without Jimmie Walker. I know it's not popular now but back then he was the main attraction. ABC thought of doing that with Fonzie on Happy Days and they realized they would have killed the parent show. It was the same thing here. I do think GT was hurt by killing James off but it's easy to see that now.

I have always believe that had John Amos stayed with Good Times, and the writing went in the right direction, Good Times could have been on for years. I believe it could have ran as long as "The Jeffersons". The problem was, the producers decided to go the route of hinging an entire sitcom on a catchphrase like "Dyno-Mite!" Sure, they got some mileage out of it, but they lost a strong actor like John Amos, Esther Rolle left for a season, and the show just could not recoup from the loss. When Amos left, the show tanked, even though it ran three more years.

An earlier post here said producers later acknowledged letting Amos go was a mistake. I am glad to hear that, because the show died because of it.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by lucyandethel

I have always believe that had John Amos stayed with Good Times, and the writing went in the right direction, Good Times could have been on for years. I believe it could have ran as long as "The Jeffersons". The problem was, the producers decided to go the route of hinging an entire sitcom on a catchphrase like "Dyno-Mite!" Sure, they got some mileage out of it, but they lost a strong actor like John Amos, Esther Rolle left for a season, and the show just could not recoup from the loss. When Amos left, the show tanked, even though it ran three more years.

An earlier post here said producers later acknowledged letting Amos go was a mistake. I am glad to hear that, because the show died because of it.

the only way it would have lasted as long as the jeffersons is if the evans MOVED out of the projects

[Brieannas21]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

the only way it would have lasted as long as the jeffersons is if the evans MOVED out of the projects

I believe that if they would have stayed with the original writers, Good Times would have lasted much longer than 6 seasons. When they changed writers the jokes got corny, and the storylines started to suck.

[ThomasE]

Originally Posted by Brieannas21

I believe that if they would have stayed with the original writers, Good Times would have lasted much longer than 6 seasons. When they changed writers the jokes got corny, and the storylines started to suck.

That's just it! Why did they feel the need to not continue without Eric Monte? They just didn't know how to leave well enough alone.

[Brieannas21]

Originally Posted by ThomasE

That's just it! Why did they feel the need to not continue without Eric Monte? They just didn't know how to leave well enough alone.

Also if the writers would have stayed James would have never been killed.

[DavidDMI]

Originally Posted by lucyandethel

I have always believe that had John Amos stayed with Good Times, and the writing went in the right direction, Good Times could have been on for years. I believe it could have ran as long as "The Jeffersons". The problem was, the producers decided to go the route of hinging an entire sitcom on a catchphrase like "Dyno-Mite!" Sure, they got some mileage out of it, but they lost a strong actor like John Amos, Esther Rolle left for a season, and the show just could not recoup from the loss. When Amos left, the show tanked, even though it ran three more years.

An earlier post here said producers later acknowledged letting Amos go was a mistake. I am glad to hear that, because the show died because of it.

I agree.The show was never the same after John Amos left.

[TMC]

James getting killed off was undoubtably the moment that Good Times jumped the shark. I really don't understand why the producers/writers (e.g. Norman Lear) had to resort to something rather petty and mean spirited as means of "paying him back" for bringing up the backstage "dirty laundry". I mean, Esther Rolle also voiced her displeasure regarding the creative direction (such as J.J.'s character in her eyes, coming across as too much of a bad role model for young black people), which resulted in her sitting out a season.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by TMC

James getting killed off was undoubtably the moment that Good Times jumped the shark. I really don't understand why the producers/writers (e.g. Norman Lear) had to resort to something rather petty and mean spirited as means of "paying him back" for bringing up the backstage "dirty laundry". I mean, Esther Rolle also voiced her displeasure regarding the creative direction (such as J.J.'s character in her eyes, coming across as too much of a bad role model for young black people), which resulted in her sitting out a season.

Probably because he went to the media and discussed what was going on behind the scenes

[TMC]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

Probably because he went to the media and discussed what was going on behind the scenes

I'm not asking why John Amos left the show, I'm asking why there couldn't been another or better way to handle his various problems or issues behind the scenes.