Miko?

[80s Dude]

Who was that Asian student that appeared in the below episode as well as an another episode?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wyyb...FrqMBVkqElZfms

Was she a perspective additional cast member? Her character in just two episodes offers more evidence that they cut the number of girls down way too much and were running out of ideas with just 4 girls.

One thing I've heard was that Nancy McKeon would throw a fit if they brought in another character to the show. I think Pamela Adlon mentioned something like this.

[Christopher]

Originally Posted by 80s Dude

Was she a perspective additional cast member? Her character in just two episodes offers more evidence that they cut the number of girls down way too much and were running out of ideas with just 4 girls.

Almost every TV show made does episodes that focus on a guest star. It's not running out of ideas. It's creating stories which is what writers are supposed to do. Majority of these episodes are filler though since the network orders over twenty episodes a season.

Also, the ratings for the show after they fired the lost girls is more evidence they made the right decision with the direction they took. Blair, Jo, Natalie, Tootie, and Mrs. Garrett are The Facts of Life. The lost girls were just useless characters until they figured out what the show was supposed to be like. If they had kept the lost girls, the show wouldn't have been a huge success and lasted as long as it did.

[80s Dude]

Originally Posted by Christopher

Almost every TV show made does episodes that focus on a guest star. It's not running out of ideas. It's creating stories which is what writers are supposed to do. Majority of these episodes are filler though since the network orders over twenty episodes a season.

Also, the ratings for the show after they fired the lost girls is more evidence they made the right decision with the direction they took. Blair, Jo, Natalie, Tootie, and Mrs. Garrett are The Facts of Life. The lost girls were just useless characters until they figured out what the show was supposed to be like. If they had kept the lost girls, the show wouldn't have been a huge success and lasted as long as it did.

This episode was basically a rehash of the Overachieving episode showed just two years earlier. When you have to repeat the same plot from a show two years earlier, you are running out of ideas.

['80sSitcoms]

Originally Posted by Christopher

Majority of these episodes are filler though since the network orders over twenty episodes a season.

"Filler"? I can see episodes of a soap opera being filler, but not a sitcom. Sitcoms are individual episodes that stand on their own merit.

Originally Posted by Christopher

Also, the ratings for the show after they fired the lost girls is more evidence they made the right decision with the direction they took.

As Retro will point out (wait until he sees this thread, lol), that's not true, because of circumstances. Season 1 had terrible schedule slots. It was changed around, and it never even aired after its parent show "Diff'rent Strokes", which was such an incredibly stupid decision. How on earth they didn't think or try to air a spin-off immediately after its parent show is beyond me.

Season 1 did start to build a bigger audience in the summer reruns. And then when season 2 came around, voila, suddenly the show was airing right after its parent show, which is where it should have been all along.

Originally Posted by Christopher

The lost girls were just useless characters

Ouch.

They were characters in their own right (Nancy is the most debatable if this were going to be argued), and had such incredible potential. That's why I rewrote the series episode synopses plugging in all of the girls.

Retro will have more to say, lol.

I do find it interesting you profess this is your favorite TV series of all time, yet you don't even like the whole first season. I'm not saying you should, it's just interesting there's that aspect.

[Christopher]

Originally Posted by '80sSitcoms

As Retro will point out (wait until he sees this thread, lol),

That's fine but to many millions of fans like myself, the show is Blair, Jo, Natalie, Tootie, and Mrs. Garrett. I know the lost girls have their fans, but they aren't what kept people watching. They didn't have the chemistry that the main four had.

Originally Posted by '80sSitcoms

Season 1 did start to build a bigger audience in the summer reruns. And then when season 2 came around, voila, suddenly the show was airing right after its parent show, which is where it should have been all along.

If airing after its parent show has an impact on ratings, why did the show do well at the start of its 3rd season at a different time slot without its parent show airing before it? In order to get a fan base, a series has to have the cast and writing. The Facts of Life didn't have this in season one.

Originally Posted by '80sSitcoms

Retro will have more to say, lol.

I do find it interesting you profess this is your favorite TV series of all time, yet you don't even like the whole first season. I'm not saying you should, it's just interesting there's that aspect.

That's fine Retro will have more to say. I respect his opinion but to me The Facts of Life didn't really begin until they minimized the cast to just the main four.

You can have favorite shows and not like every season. All of my favorite shows have weak seasons. Buffy with season 7. Desperate Housewives with season 5. Supernatural with season 8. Shameless with seasons 8 to current. The first season of The Facts of Life is a different show compared to what started in season 2. The first season is corny. The format started with season 2 is when The Facts of Life really begins for me.

['80sSitcoms]

Originally Posted by Christopher

If airing after its parent show has an impact on ratings, why did the show do well at the start of its 3rd season at a different time slot without its parent show airing before it?

Because it had aired in the time slot right after its parent show in season 2, so it was able to build up a bigger audience. If a spinoff is new it would really help it to be "connected" to its parent show either before or after ("Empty Nest" always aired right after "Golden Girls", which was wonderful for "the Miami hour"). Of course, yes, you do have to have good writing and a good cast, but to build up initially that "golden time slot" sure helps.

Originally Posted by Christopher

In order to get a fan base, a series has to have the cast and writing. The Facts of Life didn't have this in season one.

They writing definitely needed better balance to suit the cast.

Originally Posted by Christopher

You can have favorite shows and not like every season. All of my favorite shows have weak seasons.

I enjoy all seasons of "Fraggle Rock" and "Mama's Family" and "Mr. Belvedere" and "Who's the Boss", though with MB and WTB I tend to lean a little toward the earlier seasons. "The Golden Girls" really underwent some changes with the changeover of the show's staff in season 5, and it took me a long time to buy seasons 5 through 7 on DVD, but I finally did. There's still such gold in those years (no pun intended ).

"Designing Women" though, I don't have the interest for the seasons after Suzanne and Charlene (I did love Jan Hooks on SNL). And I'm "eh" with a lot of "227" after Sandra was gone, thanks to the new cast members they brought on. And I don't know how good seasons 5-7 of "Sabrina the Teenage Witch" are as I love the high school years so much, so I've just got those.

With "Facts" I enjoy the Beverly Ann seasons "enough", so while I won't skip seasons, there are just episodes I'll skip when I binge watch (always starting with "Best Sister" in the cafeteria era)---more in season 9 than any.

Hmm, I didn't realize until detailing here there are more favorite shows of mine where I favor some eras over others than I thought.

[Lorimar Television]

I definitely find my all time fav shows are shows I love though the whole series like Reba, The Middle, Friends.

[Christopher]

Originally Posted by '80sSitcoms

Because it had aired in the time slot right after its parent show in season 2, so it was able to build up a bigger audience. If a spinoff is new it would really help it to be "connected" to its parent show either before or after ("Empty Nest" always aired right after "Golden Girls", which was wonderful for "the Miami hour"). Of course, yes, you do have to have good writing and a good cast, but to build up initially that "golden time slot" sure helps.

That's a weak argument that it needs the parent show right before it to help gain an audience. It's all about writing and the cast in order to have an audience. Once the new writers got rid of the dead weight in season one, stopped objectifying the girls as sex objects with the way they were dressed in season one, brought in an actress that was just as talented to bounce off Lisa with, and made the series a show people could relate to it became the hit it was supposed to be of the 80's.

Originally Posted by '80sSitcoms

And I don't know how good seasons 5-7 of "Sabrina the Teenage Witch" are as I love the high school years so much, so I've just got those.

I can tell ya Seasons 5 - 7 are nowhere near as good as seasons 1 - 4. The aunts really faded into the background to where they were completely gone in season 7. I'll always enjoy the high school years of Sabrina over the last 3 seasons.

[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by 80s Dude

This episode was basically a rehash of the Overachieving episode showed just two years earlier. When you have to repeat the same plot from a show two years earlier, you are running out of ideas.

I'd like to echo this because I think it's not only true, it's something that hasn't really been said on this forum before. Miko's father coming to Eastland, to frown on what she's doing and how she's being influenced by Eastland, was already done in "Overachieving", with Tootie's father coming to Eastland, to frown on what she's doing and how she's being influenced by Eastland. They just changed a few names around. Which isn't surprising, because it's the same thing they did when bringing Jo on, because that episode was totally ripped off from "Little Darlings": rebellious girl steals the school/camp van, lands everyone in hot water, rich girl is resentful, girl fighting ensues.

By the middle of the third season, it's clear that the writers were running out of Eastland ideas. The fourth season would be the last Eastland year. The writers knew they had erred in limiting the number of characters, and at various times tried to fix it with recurring characters like Miko and Alexandra, and later Kelly and Andy.

I think '80sSitcoms has covered the first season"bad ratings" myth pretty well, so I'll just verify that I have indeed read newspaper articles which state that the show's ratings significantly improved over the summer, when Fantasy Island and The Incredible Hulk went into reruns, demonstrating that people were starting to tune in, despite the bad timeslot.

And FOL season 2 instantly had better ratings, which wouldn't have been possible if people weren't already tuning in.

And '80sSitcoms is right: spin-off series should air after their parent series for a least a year, so that the audience from the parent series tunes in to the new show. The "fact" (heh!) that FOL did not, during its first season, just shows how careless NBC executives were with the 1979-1980 schedule.

[80s Dude]

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

I'd like to echo this because I think it's not only true, it's something that hasn't really been said on this forum before. Miko's father coming to Eastland, to frown on what she's doing and how she's being influenced by Eastland, was already done in "Overachieving", with Tootie's father coming to Eastland, to frown on what she's doing and how she's being influenced by Eastland. They just changed a few names around. Which isn't surprising, because it's the same thing they did when bringing Jo on, because that episode was totally ripped off from "Little Darlings": rebellious girl steals the school/camp van, lands everyone in hot water, rich girl is resentful, girl fighting ensues.

By the middle of the third season, it's clear that the writers were running out of Eastland ideas. The fourth season would be the last Eastland year. The writers knew they had erred in limiting the number of characters, and at various times tried to fix it with recurring characters like Miko and Alexandra, and later Kelly and Andy.

I think '80sSitcoms has covered the first season"bad ratings" myth pretty well, so I'll just verify that I have indeed read newspaper articles which state that the show's ratings significantly improved over the summer, when Fantasy Island and The Incredible Hulk went into reruns, demonstrating that people were starting to tune in, despite the bad timeslot.

And FOL season 2 instantly had better ratings, which wouldn't have been possible if people weren't already tuning in.

And '80sSitcoms is right: spin-off series should air after their parent series for a least a year, so that the audience from the parent series tunes in to the new show. The "fact" (heh!) that FOL did not, during its first season, just shows how careless NBC executives were with the 1979-1980 schedule.

The NBC execs showed how clueless they were when they only had one hit on the whole network in the late 70s. Of course, by 1982 that would change. Cheers, Family Ties, Facts of Life, etc.

People complain that the season 1 plots were lame, but several in season 3 were lame. Like how their probationary period for damaging the van ended and then they ended up damaging their room by fighting in the paint and had to continue to work in the cafeteria. Considering Tootie's age (who was 12 years old for 3 years straight), you would think Mrs. Garrett would be violating the child labor laws.

['80sSitcoms]

Originally Posted by Christopher

That's a weak argument that it needs the parent show right before it to help gain an audience. It's all about writing and the cast in order to have an audience.

True, but it just helps to get a boost right out the gate by being with the parent show.

Originally Posted by Christopher

I can tell ya Seasons 5 - 7 are nowhere near as good as seasons 1 - 4. The aunts really faded into the background to where they were completely gone in season 7. I'll always enjoy the high school years of Sabrina over the last 3 seasons.

Funny, that's exactly the impression I've gotten just from what I know about it. Yeah, love those early years.

Originally Posted by RetroGuy2000

Miko's father coming to Eastland, to frown on what she's doing and how she's being influenced by Eastland, was already done in "Overachieving", with Tootie's father coming to Eastland, to frown on what she's doing and how she's being influenced by Eastland

That's funny, I never ever made this connection.

Last year I did make that "carbon copy" connection of "Molly's Holiday" being recycled for Jo's vehicle "The Secret" -- and those were just 13 episodes apart!

Originally Posted by 80s Dude

several in season 3 were lame. Like how their probationary period for damaging the van ended and then they ended up damaging their room by fighting in the paint and had to continue to work in the cafeteria.

Hey, that's a fan favorite! Such a great episode!

Originally Posted by 80s Dude

Considering Tootie's age (who was 12 years old for 3 years straight), you would think Mrs. Garrett would be violating the child labor laws.

Well, she was only 12 for 2 years. At the start of season 3, she had just turned 13.

[80s Dude]

Tootie was 12 in the Girls School episode. Then she was still 12 late in season 2 during the Pretty Baby episode.

['80sSitcoms]

Originally Posted by 80s Dude

Tootie was 12 in the Girls School episode. Then she was still 12 late in season 2 during the Pretty Baby episode.

Oh that's right! "You're 12 years old!!" WOW

So she was 12 years old for 2 years: by May 1979 until summer 1981.

[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by 80s Dude

The NBC execs showed how clueless they were when they only had one hit on the whole network in the late 70s. Of course, by 1982 that would change. Cheers, Family Ties, Facts of Life, etc.

Yes. It's crazy because during the 1978-1979 season, NBC's only top-20 show was Little House, at #14. Weirdly, NBC had nothing in the top 20 in 1981-1982. It wouldn't be until 1983 that NBC would even begin to recover from the disaster of the late 1970s. It was like they were asleep at the wheel.

People complain that the season 1 plots were lame, but several in season 3 were lame. Like how their probationary period for damaging the van ended and then they ended up damaging their room by fighting in the paint and had to continue to work in the cafeteria. Considering Tootie's age (who was 12 years old for 3 years straight), you would think Mrs. Garrett would be violating the child labor laws.

I don't mind the Season 3 plots, and don't mind Tootie being 12 for multiple years: Eastland time runs differently than time here on Earth.

[RetroGuy2000]

Originally Posted by '80sSitcoms

That's funny, I never ever made this connection.

Yeah, I think that 80s Dude hit the nail on the head with that one.

Last year I did make that "carbon copy" connection of "Molly's Holiday" being recycled for Jo's vehicle "The Secret" -- and those were just 13 episodes apart!

I can definitely see the similarities, but I also see some major differences.