Substantial, or the "Full House" of it's time?

[zombi2]

I haven't seen an episode since I was a kid and that was in the 80's so my memory is certainly questionable but I thought this show tackled real issues and controversial subjects a lot of the time. Maybe not to the extent of Maude or anything but everything I read now seems to put it in the "throwaway fluff" category (ala "Full House"). Am I remembering this all wrong?

[frodnew6]

Ugh, I hate it when people put FOL in the fluff category. I feel like this show had a lot more substance to it than most, and the actors on it were actually talented. It was realistic in that it had normal sized girls with normal problems and issues that kids and adults go through.

[RWCTV]

Originally Posted by zombi2

I haven't seen an episode since I was a kid and that was in the 80's so my memory is certainly questionable but I thought this show tackled real issues and controversial a lot of time. Maybe not to the extent of Maude or anything but everything I read now seems to put it in the "throwaway fluff" category (ala "Full House"). Am I remembering this all wrong?

This series did address some controversial issues, but with more of a moral approach to them. When it came to the comedy, the comedy was, in my opinion, mostly lighthearted, but in many instances, was pretty corny.

I do think that "Full House" was ridiculously more corny than this show. But that's just me.

[DarkDante]

Originally Posted by zombi2

I haven't seen an episode since I was a kid and that was in the 80's so my memory is certainly questionable but I thought this show tackled real issues and controversial a lot of time. Maybe not to the extent of Maude or anything but everything I read now seems to put it in the "throwaway fluff" category (ala "Full House"). Am I remembering this all wrong?

In some ways the series was ahead of it's time in terms of reaching the demographic that it did in the way that it did. As RWCTV stated the series did broach some controversial issues, issues that would've been inconceivable to be addressed towards an audience of teenagers as late as the early seventies.

However, the flaws of FOL can been seen clear as day when you compare how several of the same issues raised on FOL were tackled on shows like "Beverly Hills: 90210" which for me at least till this day remains the gold standard in addressing controversial issues facing adolescents of the day effectively.

[frodnew6]

I think a lot of the stories, and especially the writing, was ahead of its time. There are so many episodes where I still laugh out loud watching them today, and I rarely laugh out loud at t.v. shows. They had a lot of clever lines.

[ABlairican Pie]

Originally Posted by DarkDante

In some ways the series was ahead of it's time in terms of reaching the demographic that it did in the way that it did. As RWCTV stated the series did broach some controversial issues, issues that would've been inconceivable to be addressed towards an audience of teenagers as late as the early seventies.

However, the flaws of FOL can been seen clear as day when you compare how several of the same issues raised on FOL were tackled on shows like "Beverly Hills: 90210" which for me at least till this day remains the gold standard in addressing controversial issues facing adolescents of the day effectively.

I don't know, but that Blair avatar is totally hot. I haven't seen that photo before.

I at least think 'Facts Of Life' was rather groundbreaking for being the kind of show that it was for touching on such topics, for a teen audience, when it did back in the late 70's/early 80's and so on. It was a Norman Lear-based spinoff, after all.

[DarkDante]

Originally Posted by ABlairican Pie

I don't know, but that Blair avatar is totally hot. I haven't seen that photo before.

I at least think 'Facts Of Life' was rather groundbreaking for being the kind of show that it was for touching on such topics, for a teen audience, when it did back in the late 70's/early 80's and so on. It was a Norman Lear-based spinoff, after all.

It's probably been said ad naseum but Lear took television out of the doldrums of it just being a method of escapism to a being a reflection of the world at large. The problem is it just took a decade or so for the networks to come to grips with the fact that the old game didn't work anymore and that sensitive issues either needed to be or were going to be raised on television.

So while FOL was groundbreaking for even broaching such topics to it's demographic they did so in what has to be seen in hindsight as being in a somewhat clumsy fashion.

PS: I like that Lisa avatar too. I can't remember where I got it from but I was nosing around gettyimages awhile back and there are a ton of promo shots from the first season which are all watermarked by getty. But the point being that they took a ton of promotional images from that season.

[frodnew6]

I thought that season 1 and 2 were a bit clumsy sometimes, but after that, I think the show found its niche and presented things in a pretty realistic manner. Well, as realistic as you can get for a half-hour program.

[candycandy]

Originally Posted by frodnew6

I thought that season 1 and 2 were a bit clumsy sometimes, but after that, I think the show found its niche and presented things in a pretty realistic manner. Well, as realistic as you can get for a half-hour program.

In my opinion season 3 to 6 was when FOL was really a success!

[frodnew6]

Originally Posted by candycandy

In my opinion season 3 to 6 was when FOL was really a success!

Totally agree. I liked the seasons after that, but they definitely weren't the same. There was a whole different atmosphere.

[candycandy]

Originally Posted by frodnew6

Totally agree. I liked the seasons after that, but they definitely weren't the same. There was a whole different atmosphere.

There would be: MRS. G who was the star of FOL was gone!

[frodnew6]

Originally Posted by candycandy

There would be: MRS. G who was the star of FOL was gone!

Exactly. I feel like if they were going to take away Mrs. Garrett, then they should have just left the girls on their own. Why did they need another older woman living with them? They were old enough to be independent.

Beverly Ann did have her funny moments, but it was still a whole different feel to the show. They hardly ever did any serious subjects anymore. It was all just comedy--which is kind of fine--but it was just different. It's almost hard to even describe lol.

[icecream]

The Facts of Life is a hundred times better than Full House.

[kadeliah]

It seemed to me that full house appealed more to children, while FOL was a little more teen oriented... if that makes sense

Either way, FOL was better

[frodnew6]

Originally Posted by kadeliah

It seemed to me that full house appealed more to children, while FOL was a little more teen oriented... if that makes sense

Either way, FOL was better

I agree. Plus, you can really appreciate FOL as an adult. I'm 23 now and rewatching them all from when I first watched them as a kid on Nick at Nite, and now I can appreciate the acting (especially Nancy) and the stories and issues it covers. As a kid, it was just a fun show, but now it feels like more to me.

With Full House...well, when I watch that now, I wonder why the heck I ever watched it as a kid. It's just...meh.