4th Season: Would The Sweathogs Have Been Better Off As A Trio...?

[Dr. Thong]

In the non-Travolta 4th season episodes, would it have been better if The Sweathogs been comprised of the trio of Washington, Epstein & Horshack instead of bringing in the character of Beau DeLabarre...?

Discuss.

[robyrob]

Beau was bad, they could've just used the background characters more I thought...

[Dr. Thong]

Mmm-hmmm. They already had Carvelli and Murray. Beau was an unnecessary add-on.

[robyrob]

either that, or maybe they could've added some different new characters and try them out for a few episodes at a time, and if they work out then expand their roles, clearly Beau was a no-go though.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by Dr. Thong

In the non-Travolta 4th season episodes, would it have been better if The Sweathogs been comprised of the trio of Washington, Epstein & Horshack instead of bringing in the character of Beau DeLabarre...?

Discuss.

Of course, why add some new to a group that has been together for 3 years. Very dumb decision to add Beau to the cast

[Brian Damage]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

Of course, why add some new to a group that has been together for 3 years. Very dumb decision to add Beau to the cast

I agree 100%

[Dr. Thong]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

Of course, why add some new to a group that has been together for 3 years. Very dumb decision to add Beau to the cast

Well, I imagine the thinking was that there were four Sweathogs, so a fill-in like Beau was needed for the non-Travolta episodes, as John was now a "Special Guest Star," who appeared in only a handful of episodes that season.

But that wasn't the only bad decision. Komack's edict that the show become "issue oriented" changed the tone of the show as well and without Kaplan and Travolta (not to mention the wholesale reshuffling of the writing and production staff), WBK was no longer the show it had been for the first three seasons.

[Mr. Television]

Originally Posted by Dr. Thong

Well, I imagine the thinking was that there were four Sweathogs, so a fill-in like Beau was needed for the non-Travolta episodes, as John was now a "Special Guest Star," who appeared in only a handful of episodes that season.

But that wasn't the only bad decision. Komack's edict that the show become "issue oriented" changed the tone of the show as well and without Kaplan and Travolta (not to mention the wholesale reshuffling of the writing and production staff), WBK was no longer the show it had been for the first three seasons.

It was bad enough without Travolta but Without Kaplan, they should have just stuck a fork in it. It was done.

[Dr. Thong]

Originally Posted by Stuck In The '70's

It was bad enough without Travolta but Without Kaplan, they should have just stuck a fork in it. It was done.

Yeah, but TV producers (certain ones) will milk a show for all it's worth, wanting to make $$$. And I'm sure James Komack also kept the show going to show Gabe Kaplan that he was the boss.

[TVFactFan]

This show has been out of syndication for 11 years, sad

[hatwink]

Originally Posted by Dr. Thong

In the non-Travolta 4th season episodes, would it have been better if The Sweathogs been comprised of the trio of Washington, Epstein & Horshack instead of bringing in the character of Beau DeLabarre...?

Discuss.

No, the sitcom wouldn't have worked without the interaction of the four.Without John, the series would be lacking.

[Dr. Thong]

Originally Posted by hatwink

No, the sitcom wouldn't have worked without the interaction of the four.Without John, the series would be lacking.

Well, the series was lacking John...and Gabe! John was only in a handful of episodes because his film career was skyrocketing and a lot of people didn't care for Beau as a fill-in fourth Sweathog, so would it have been better to just have the trio of Washington, Epstein & Horshack for the non-Travolta episodes?

Having John in all the episodes was not an option, so the producers provided Beau to fill in the gap created by Travolta's absence.

[Retro4Life]

There are truly times when shows need to just concede that if certain actors leave, the whole premise and dynamic that made the show work is done. It rarely happens, of course, which is why you have so many great shows limping off the air with weak, half hearted final season (or seasons).

MTM did it right. They saw the end coming and didn't want to fade away, but go out with a bang. I only wish others would have followed their example.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by Retro4Life

There are truly times when shows need to just concede that if certain actors leave, the whole premise and dynamic that made the show work is done. It rarely happens, of course, which is why you have so many great shows limping off the air with weak, half hearted final season (or seasons).

MTM did it right. They saw the end coming and didn't want to fade away, but go out with a bang. I only wish others would have followed their example.

MTM was on the air 6 years when they decided to end it. WBK was only on the air 4 years

[Retro4Life]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

MTM was on the air 6 years when they decided to end it. WBK was only on the air 4 years

Doesn't matter. The point was not how long the show had been on, but what had happened in the time it was. Only Valerie Harper and Cloris Leachman, two supporting characters, had left MTM. The two major stars of WBK had left; totally different situation.