Something weird I noticed in the episode-"J.J's Gang" - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

TVFactFan · 11-16-2002, 07:29 PM

I watched the episode today when J.J was shot by Mad Dog which frustrated James. But did anybody find it weird that the character James wanted to fight Mad Dog who was a child to James? I just found it weird that the James character wanted to fight someone who was in the same age bracket as his son.

W.J. Griffin · 11-17-2002, 12:48 PM

If you'll recall, Maddog was going to shoot JAMES...J.J. jumped in the way to save his father. So it's only natural that James wanted to kick Maddog's ass, just on general principals. (C'mon, Solomon, wouldn't YOU want to retailiate against someone who attacked your family, no matter how young or old they were? Personally, if I were James, I would've went ahead with the smackdown anyway, but when he saw Maddog's mother disown him, James's basic decency came to the fore...probably a good thing for Maddog in the long run.)

TVFactFan · 11-17-2002, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by W.J. Griffin
If you'll recall, Maddog was going to shoot JAMES...J.J. jumped in the way to save his father. So it's only natural that James wanted to kick Maddog's ass, just on general principals. (C'mon, Solomon, wouldn't YOU want to retailiate against someone who attacked your family, no matter how young or old they were? Personally, if I were James, I would've went ahead with the smackdown anyway, but when he saw Maddog's mother disown him, James's basic decency came to the fore...probably a good thing for Maddog in the long run.)

If the person is in the same age bracket as my son, I would let the law take care of Mad Dog. So the character Florida was right when she said James the law will take care of Mad Dog. I personally will feel foolish fighting a child.

ThomasE · 11-17-2002, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SOLOMON

If the person is in the same age bracket as my son, I would let the law take care of Mad Dog. So the character Florida was right when she said James the law will take care of Mad Dog. I personally will feel foolish fighting a child.

I can understand James' point of view. That was his child, so it would only be natural that he would want to kick his butt.

BigBroDee3x · 11-19-2002, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by W.J. Griffin
If you'll recall, Maddog was going to shoot JAMES...J.J. jumped in the way to save his father. So it's only natural that James wanted to kick Maddog's ass, just on general principals. (C'mon, Solomon, wouldn't YOU want to retailiate against someone who attacked your family, no matter how young or old they were? Personally, if I were James, I would've went ahead with the smackdown anyway, but when he saw Maddog's mother disown him, James's basic decency came to the fore...probably a good thing for Maddog in the long run.)

Also, when you think about it, Mad Dog's mother disowning him hurt him in a way James never could.

W.J. Griffin · 11-25-2002, 12:25 AM

True 'dat.

LPC · 01-03-2003, 07:51 PM

The most important point was the implication that those who become involved in gangs and commit crime and/or beat/murder people aren't to blame; instead, it's the result of coming from a broken family or some other social problem. The odious actions of individuals such as Maddog, therefore, are not to be seen as his/her fault. The swinging of emotions in the two episodes was quite extraordinary as we went from wanting Maddog to be smacked to suddenly feeling very sorry for him (the switch from villain-to-victim was unbelievably swift).

This is the kind of thinking that was really starting to take root in the late 1960's and early 70's so it wasn't surprising that it managed to infect a Good Times episode in the mid-1970's. Everyone who was seen as bad was actually good and everyone who was seen as good was actually bad.

W.J. Griffin · 01-04-2003, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LPC
The most important point was the implication that those who become involved in gangs and commit crime and/or beat/murder people aren't to blame; intead, it's the result of coming from a broken family or some other social problem. The odious actions of individuals such as Maddog, therefore, are not to be seen as his/her fault. The swinging of emotions in the two episodes was quite extraordinary as we went from wanting Maddog to be smacked to suddenly feeling very sorry for him (the switch from villain-to-victim was unbelievably swift).

This is the kind of thinking that was really starting to take root in the late 1960's and early 70's so it wasn't surprising that it managed to infect a Good Times episode in the mid-1970's. Everyone who was seen as bad was actually good and everyone who was seen as good was actually bad.

I dunno, LPC...I think you may be over-simplyfying the situation,,,James fully intended to beat the crap out of Mad Dog for shooting his son, but when Mad Dog's Mama disowned him James, being a decent human being, decided against kicking a Mad Dog when he was down.

Make no mistake, what Mad Dog did was heinous beyond words, but James's actions proved that just because one is put down, you don't necessarilly have to rub salt into the wound. Therefore, James refraining from sinking into the same pool of violent retribution ( as Mad Dog surely would have) just reaffirms his basic goodness and humanity.

LPC · 01-04-2003, 08:26 PM

W.J. Griffin,

Everyone is aware that James was intending to beat the crap out of Maddog. However, why he chose not to is the main point. He refrained because he suddenly felt sorry for him upon discovering that he came from a broken family that had an abandoned father and a mother who had lost faith in him. To me the implication was that Maddog turned out the way he did because of this and that he therefore could not held responsible for his actions. In other words, it was the broken family and the society that produced the deviant Mr. Maddog. Hence, don't blame Maddog and others like him for becoming part of a gang and also shooting, beating, killing and/or robbing people. Instead, feel sorry for them since it's not their fault.

You can refer to this as an overly-simplified perspective but that's how I interpreted the situation. I should mention that I have a social sciences degree and as such am very famiar with this kind of analysis (i.e., poor people and "oppressd" minorities who commit crime are not to blame but are instead manfiesting the stress of being a "victim"). In fact, the ethos in Good Times was that the Evans family lived in poverty because of their skin colour and that they were denied many opportunities because of it.

W.J. Griffin · 01-04-2003, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LPC
W.J. Griffin,

Everyone is aware that James was intending to beat the crap out of Maddog. However, why he chose not to is the main point. He refrained because he suddenly felt sorry for him upon discovering that he came from a broken family that had an abandoned father and a mother who had lost faith in him. To me the implication was that Maddog turned out the way he did because of this and that he therefore could not held responsible for his actions. In other words, it was the broken family and the society that produced the deviant Mr. Maddog. Hence, don't blame Maddog and others like him for becoming part of a gang and also shooting, beating, killing and/or robbing people. Instead, feel sorry for them since it's not their fault.

You can refer to this as an overly-simplified perspective but that's how I interpreted the situation. I should mention that I have a social sciences degree and as such am very famiar with this kind of analysis (i.e., poor people and "oppressd" minorities who commit crime are not to blame but are instead manfiesting the stress of being a "victim"). In fact, the ethos in Good Times was that the Evans family lived in poverty because of their skin colour and that they were denied many opportunities because of it.

I think I know what you're saying about the liberal elements of "Good Times", LPC...they did have a tendency to go overboard at times...

But the point I was making was that at the climax of the episode, it was no longer about Mad Dog's sins, it was about James' compassion. Now, mind you, Mad Dog's court appearance was a joke, as he pretty much got off with a slap on the wrist, so there would be no justice for the TRUE victim in this case...J.J. So, like most normal folks, James Evans Sr. would get a little vengeance of his own.

But if you've ever been on the recieving end of a parent telling you you're no good, (as James himself may have heard at one point in his life) then you'd know that is a hurt that's worse than any beating you could recieve...or dish out.

James knew this. That's why he walked away.

You see, it's not about the left letting criminals get off scott-free, it's not about coddling, and it's not about the general breakdown of society...it's about not letting the craziness in the world engulf you, whether it took the form of crime, violence, poverty or racism...it's about keeping your head above water, making a wave when you can, to coin a phrase. This was something the show's creators...Mike Evans and Eric Monte, two Black Men...knew all too well.

LPC · 01-05-2003, 12:40 AM

W.J. Griffin,

My interpretation is that James' compassion kicked in because Maddog was suddenly portrayed as the TRUE "victim," ahead of even J.J.'s victimhood. In a sense you're actually confirming this by saying that psychological abuse from a parent is worse than a beating.

And without getting too personal, one of my parents has said some things to me over the years that a parent should never say yet I've never done the kinds of things that Maddog did.

W.J. Griffin · 01-05-2003, 03:48 PM

No, not the "true" victim...it's just that James realized that Mad Dog is going to have a tougher row to hoe than J.J ever will...and his wailing on Mad Dog probably would've been a waste of time, anyway...

As for J.J., he didn't suffer any permanent damage to either his body or his psyche, and it certainly didn't hamper his artistic ability. Possibly, James was just grateful that his son was still alive, and that's all a parent can really ask for.(particularly when residng in such a desperate millieu as the Cabrini-Green development in Chicago, where many kids weren't lucky enough to have both parents at home and the support of a loving family, as J.J. did.)

Sometimes, to forgive is indeed divine.(awfully deep discussion for a tv sitcom, huh?)

11-16-2002, 07:29 PM	#1
TVFactFan Member Forum Junkie Join Date: Aug 17, 2002 Posts: 99,055	Something weird I noticed in the episode-"J.J's Gang" I watched the episode today when J.J was shot by Mad Dog which frustrated James. But did anybody find it weird that the character James wanted to fight Mad Dog who was a child to James? I just found it weird that the James character wanted to fight someone who was in the same age bracket as his son.

01-03-2003, 07:51 PM	#7
LPC Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Oct 19, 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 12	The most important point was the implication that those who become involved in gangs and commit crime and/or beat/murder people aren't to blame; instead, it's the result of coming from a broken family or some other social problem. The odious actions of individuals such as Maddog, therefore, are not to be seen as his/her fault. The swinging of emotions in the two episodes was quite extraordinary as we went from wanting Maddog to be smacked to suddenly feeling very sorry for him (the switch from villain-to-victim was unbelievably swift). This is the kind of thinking that was really starting to take root in the late 1960's and early 70's so it wasn't surprising that it managed to infect a Good Times episode in the mid-1970's. Everyone who was seen as bad was actually good and everyone who was seen as good was actually bad.
	Last edited by LPC; 01-31-2004 at 06:44 AM.

01-04-2003, 08:26 PM	#9
LPC Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Oct 19, 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 12	W.J. Griffin, Everyone is aware that James was intending to beat the crap out of Maddog. However, why he chose not to is the main point. He refrained because he suddenly felt sorry for him upon discovering that he came from a broken family that had an abandoned father and a mother who had lost faith in him. To me the implication was that Maddog turned out the way he did because of this and that he therefore could not held responsible for his actions. In other words, it was the broken family and the society that produced the deviant Mr. Maddog. Hence, don't blame Maddog and others like him for becoming part of a gang and also shooting, beating, killing and/or robbing people. Instead, feel sorry for them since it's not their fault. You can refer to this as an overly-simplified perspective but that's how I interpreted the situation. I should mention that I have a social sciences degree and as such am very famiar with this kind of analysis (i.e., poor people and "oppressd" minorities who commit crime are not to blame but are instead manfiesting the stress of being a "victim"). In fact, the ethos in Good Times was that the Evans family lived in poverty because of their skin colour and that they were denied many opportunities because of it.
	Last edited by LPC; 01-04-2003 at 09:43 PM.

11-17-2002, 12:48 PM	#2
W.J. Griffin Member Forum Regular Join Date: Aug 29, 2002 Posts: 527	If you'll recall, Maddog was going to shoot JAMES...J.J. jumped in the way to save his father. So it's only natural that James wanted to kick Maddog's ass, just on general principals. (C'mon, Solomon, wouldn't YOU want to retailiate against someone who attacked your family, no matter how young or old they were? Personally, if I were James, I would've went ahead with the smackdown anyway, but when he saw Maddog's mother disown him, James's basic decency came to the fore...probably a good thing for Maddog in the long run.)

11-25-2002, 12:25 AM	#6
W.J. Griffin Member Forum Regular Join Date: Aug 29, 2002 Posts: 527	True 'dat.

01-05-2003, 12:40 AM	#11
LPC Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Oct 19, 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 12	W.J. Griffin, My interpretation is that James' compassion kicked in because Maddog was suddenly portrayed as the TRUE "victim," ahead of even J.J.'s victimhood. In a sense you're actually confirming this by saying that psychological abuse from a parent is worse than a beating. And without getting too personal, one of my parents has said some things to me over the years that a parent should never say yet I've never done the kinds of things that Maddog did.

01-05-2003, 03:48 PM	#12
W.J. Griffin Member Forum Regular Join Date: Aug 29, 2002 Posts: 527	No, not the "true" victim...it's just that James realized that Mad Dog is going to have a tougher row to hoe than J.J ever will...and his wailing on Mad Dog probably would've been a waste of time, anyway... As for J.J., he didn't suffer any permanent damage to either his body or his psyche, and it certainly didn't hamper his artistic ability. Possibly, James was just grateful that his son was still alive, and that's all a parent can really ask for.(particularly when residng in such a desperate millieu as the Cabrini-Green development in Chicago, where many kids weren't lucky enough to have both parents at home and the support of a loving family, as J.J. did.) Sometimes, to forgive is indeed divine.(awfully deep discussion for a tv sitcom, huh?)