Who Ruined 'All in The Family?' Norman Lear? CBS? Carroll O'Connor?

[Brian Damage]

No doubt about it, All in the Family was a fantastic sitcom/dramedy. However, we all know that the show overstayed its welcome. Who is to blame for All in the Family "jumping the shark?" When, if at all did it jump?

Was it CBS' fault, Norman Lear, Carroll O'Connor, the writers??? Who is to blame?

[Dr. Thong]

I don't think All In The Family ever jumped the shark. While the last year of the show without Mike and Gloria was not as good, it was still watchable.

Now, I do think that the Archie character may have stayed on the air too long. While Archie Bunker's Place wasn't a bad show, it was never as good or great as AITF.

It retrospect, AITF probably should have ended when Mike and Gloria left. Too much of the show was built around the conflicts between Mike and Archie and without that, the show was somewhat lacking.

[Brian Damage]

Originally Posted by Dr. Thong

I don't think All In The Family ever jumped the shark. While the last year of the show without Mike and Gloria was not as good, it was still watchable.

Now, I do think that the Archie character may have stayed on the air too long. While Archie Bunker's Place wasn't a bad show, it was never as good or great as AITF.

It retrospect, AITF probably should have ended when Mike and Gloria left. Too much of the show was built around the conflicts between Mike and Archie and without that, the show was somewhat lacking.

Exactly my point Doc, was it CBS wanting to milk the Archie character for everything it was worth or perhaps Carroll O'Connor for wanting things his way all the time?

The show was still watchable I will agree on that, but definitely not up to the standards of what we were accustomed to.

[Mr. Television]

I'm still glad that they continued AITF after Mike & Gloria left. It's true the show was never as great as it once was but it was still a good show. I can see why fans didn't like it. Killing Edith off and breaking up Mike & Gloria didn't help. The only thing I wish was that ABP had a chance for a true final episode so Archie could have went out in style.

[Brian Damage]

Originally Posted by Stuck In The '70's

I'm still glad that they continued AITF after Mike & Gloria left. It's true the show was never as great as it once was but it was still a good show. I can see why fans didn't like it. Killing Edith off and breaking up Mike & Gloria didn't help. The only thing I wish was that ABP had a chance for a true final episode so Archie could have went out in style.

So true Sonny an every point! The writers did a bang up job of never giving the show a proper farewell. You could also forget a reunion show like so many they did back in the 80's because Edith was dead and Mike and Gloria were no longer a married couple. lol

[Retro4Life]

Originally Posted by Brian Damage

So true Sonny an every point! The writers did a bang up job of never giving the show a proper farewell. You could also forget a reunion show like so many they did back in the 80's because Edith was dead and Mike and Gloria were no longer a married couple. lol

Whoever decided to go along with the idea of continuing the show after Mike and Gloria left is guilty of, if not 'ruining' it, seriously compromising it's legacy. The show was very bland and weak after the kids left, and after Edith died, it really got worse. Sure there was the charisma of O'Connor to carry it along, but I just couldn't get into it at that point, no matter how hard I tried. There was so little real conflict, and the supporting characters were so weak it just kind of sat there and whimpered.

As for a reunion show, they could have done one after Edith died, with the kids reconciling and coming back from CA to help Archie in his golden years after he'd sold the bar and retired, maybe with a physical ailment. Mike could have been on the local city council,, Gloria might have done some daycare or worked at Joey's school (assuming this was in the 80's to 90's), Stephanie could have lived at home, fixing up the basement or something. And Edith could have been referenced a lot. As it is, with Carroll O'Connor gone, they've lost even that chance.

[ThomasE]

If there were a reunion, it would not have been in the 90's. By then, the house was sold to the african-american family, the Cumberbatches.

[Benno123]

Like in real life, children move away and parents are left on their own. Continuing on after Mike and Gloria left is just another way of showing a realism that AITF had. However, bringing in Stephanie was, in my opinion, a big mistake. I do not have an idea of what a proper concept could have been, but focusing on the Archie and Edith relationship instead of having them raise a child - again - was not my cup of tea. But it is what it is, and we still have some fabulous shows to watch anytime we want. Those were the days ....

[ThomasE]

Well, I will say this. Stephanie was great insurance to have to prop Archie in the later years when everyone else left the house. So that panned out ok.

[Brian Damage]

I forgot about the house being spun off LOL

[Yooch]

Originally Posted by Dr. Thong

I don't think All In The Family ever jumped the shark. While the last year of the show without Mike and Gloria was not as good, it was still watchable.

Now, I do think that the Archie character may have stayed on the air too long. While Archie Bunker's Place wasn't a bad show, it was never as good or great as AITF.

It retrospect, AITF probably should have ended when Mike and Gloria left. Too much of the show was built around the conflicts between Mike and Archie and without that, the show was somewhat lacking.

I think you expressed it well.

[TVFactFan]

adding stephanie was the biggest mistake of the series

[Benno123]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

adding stephanie was the biggest mistake of the series

This is so, so true! The 9th season just feels as if they were stretching the show to have something to watch.

Between Stephanie and the lack of taping in front of an audience, AITF lost its magic (and timing for that matter).

Is it just me, but in the later episodes with the lack of audience does O'Connor and Stapleton seem almost reserved in their acting as the Bunkers? I've always thought that the characters seem to be missing their "edge" if that is a good word to use to describe it.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by Benno123

This is so, so true! The 9th season just feels as if they were stretching the show to have something to watch.

Between Stephanie and the lack of taping in front of an audience, AITF lost its magic (and timing for that matter).

Is it just me, but in the later episodes with the lack of audience does O'Connor and Stapleton seem almost reserved in their acting as the Bunkers? I've always thought that the characters seem to be missing their "edge" if that is a good word to use to describe it.

They had to lose their edge because of the little kid

[Dr. Thong]

Originally Posted by Benno123

This is so, so true! The 9th season just feels as if they were stretching the show to have something to watch.

Between Stephanie and the lack of taping in front of an audience, AITF lost its magic (and timing for that matter).

Is it just me, but in the later episodes with the lack of audience does O'Connor and Stapleton seem almost reserved in their acting as the Bunkers? I've always thought that the characters seem to be missing their "edge" if that is a good word to use to describe it.

Acting in front of a live audience requires a different technique: You have to "play to the back rows." Ever notice that shows filmed before live audiences tend to be louder? That's because the actors are playing more broadly and there are three cameras there to cover all the filming angles.

I always thought it was weird when you heard Carroll O' Connor say: "All In the Family was played for a studio audience for live responses." Sort of like a live laugh track.