I found out in the 1974 issue of Ebony Magazine that Good Times is not a spinoff

[TVFactFan]

Finally, after reading the 1974 issue of Ebony Magazine, i was able to find out that Good Times was not a spinoff of Maude. In the Article it states that Norman Lear asked Mike Evans-Lionel on the Jeffersons, to create a show for Esther Rolle that would make her the star of the show. That is why CBS sent a camera crew out to the Chicago Gettho to give the shw it's own IDENTITY!! So Good Times was basically a ideA that creator Eric Monte came up with that have nothing to do with Maude. They just forget to give the mother and father different names. Boy was that a big mistake. It clearly states that John Amos and Esther Rolle were such big hits on Maude that the were GIVEN there own show not SPINOFFed into their own series. So there, no more discussion about Good Times being a spinoff because it was in no way connected to Maude. I have been saying this long before i read the article in Ebony Magazine.

[Sean Snow]

Well, 'identity' can mean various things. If a show doesn't have it's own identity and is connected with the parent show too much, it can cause a show to not get a large audience. That was a large error with the spinoff of the drama Dynasty - The Colbys. The show was too much connected to the parent show and because of this it couldn't come up with many plots that wern't connected to DYN until the second season. 'Identity' would mean it would be different from other shows - not the same old, same old.

In many places, it says Norman Fell and Audra Lindley were given their own show - The Ropers. Yet TR was a spinoff. So it depends on what they mean.

Yeah, some of the things were messed up between Maude and Good Times. I dunno. I would still consider it a spinoff. *shrug* I remember reading that a lot of changes happened between the Empty Nest pilot on The Golden Girls and Empty Nest, characterwise, yet it's still considered a spinoff. *Shrug*

[ThomasE]

SOLOMON you have got to let this thing rest. That article does NOT say that it was "not" a spinoff. It is as clear as day, man. You said in the posting that it was the article that said that it was an "idea" . Spinoffs are ideas that are taken from one area and full blown into something else. They did not forget to "change the names of the characters". They knew what they were doing. It seems as though you are using your own logic to come up with this answer. Florida Evans' character was spun off. There is no doubt about that.

[TVFactFan]

Originally posted by ThomasE
SOLOMON you have got to let this thing rest. That article does NOT say that it was "not" a spinoff. It is as clear as day, man. You said in the posting that it was the article that said that it was an "idea" . Spinoffs are ideas that are taken from one area and full blown into something else. They did not forget to "change the names of the characters". They knew what they were doing. It seems as though you are using your own logic to come up with this answer. Florida Evans' character was spun off. There is no doubt about that.

Well until someone comes up with a good explanation about why Good Times was based in Chicago and not NY, then Good Times will always be it's own show and not a spinoff.

[ThomasE]

Originally posted by SOLOMON



Well until someone comes up with a good explanation about why Good Times was based in Chicago and not NY, then Good Times will always be it's own show and not a spinoff.

SOLOMON you have crew memeber who were interviewed for the "E" true Hollywood story that state it was a spinoff of Maude. Yes, I see the fact that the show had it's own identity but it was spunoff. Setting location for the spinoff did not matter in this case, characters did. You can't post this as factual because it is your opinion from what you have read. Location does not matter, you have to understand that.

[TVFactFan]

Originally posted by ThomasE


SOLOMON you have crew memeber who were interviewed for the "E" true Hollywood story that state it was a spinoff of Maude. Yes, I see the fact that the show had it's own identity but it was spunoff. Setting location for the spinoff did not matter in this case, characters did. You can't post this as factual because it is your opinion from what you have read. Location does not matter, you have to understand that.

These spinoffs support my argument.
Laverne and Shirley-same city as Happy days

Jeffersons same State as All in the Family

Ropers same State as Three's Company

Now there were other spinoffs tha were in other cities but there was a explanation on why that character was in that city

Rhoda
Phyllis
Frasier
Mork and Mindy.

[ThomasE]

Originally posted by SOLOMON


These spinoffs support my argument.
Laverne and Shirley-same city as Happy days

Jeffersons same State as All in the Family

Ropers same State as Three's Company

Now there were other spinoffs tha were in other cities but there was a explanation on why that character was in that city

Rhoda
Phyllis
Frasier
Mork and Mindy.

Good Times is a spinoff. It's fragmented I'll admit that but Florida Evans was spunoff into her own world, man. City location alone is not supportive material to state whether a show is a spinoff or not. As far as explanation goes, it's TV they can do what they want. I didn't agree with the way it was done but TV is about creativity.

[TVFactFan]

Originally posted by ThomasE


Good Times is a spinoff. It's fragmented I'll admit that but Florida Evans was spunoff into her own world, man. City location alone is not supportive material to state whether a show is a spinoff or not. As far as explanation goes, it's TV they can do what they want. I didn't agree with the way it was done but TV is about creativity.

Well i'm going to watch the true hollywood story of Good Times right now because i don't remember hearing someone say that Good Times was a spinoff-So i have to see if i hear that.

[TVFactFan]

Originally posted by ThomasE


Good Times is a spinoff. It's fragmented I'll admit that but Florida Evans was spunoff into her own world, man. City location alone is not supportive material to state whether a show is a spinoff or not. As far as explanation goes, it's TV they can do what they want. I didn't agree with the way it was done but TV is about creativity.

Well one of the writers did mention spinoff but without a explanation on why was Good Times based in Chicago

[ThomasE]

Originally posted by SOLOMON



Well one of the writers did mention spinoff but without a explanation on why was Good Times based in Chicago

There. You have a writer saying the same thing. John Ritter said it too in the 1st annual TV Land Awards promo. It's in all the Tv books. Besides, it's so obvious, James and Florida go from one show to another in same the same character form. If they wanted to switch to Chicago, that's their business. I wish they would have remained in NY or at least moved to Chicago, but they did what they wanted. Another fragmented spinoff was "Billy" from Head of the Class. He moved in with a female professor and married her so he could keep his green card and played his same character on Head of the Class.

[TVFactFan]

Originally posted by ThomasE


There. You have a writer saying the same thing. John Ritter said it too in the 1st annual TV Land Awards promo. It's in all the Tv books. Besides, it's so obvious, James and Florida go from one show to another in same the same character form. If they wanted to switch to Chicago, that's their business. I wish they would have remained in NY or at least moved to Chicago, but they did what they wanted. Another fragmented spinoff was "Billy" from Head of the Class. He moved in with a female professor and married her so he could keep his green card and played his same character on Head of the Class.

Ok Thmomas, i received the 1975 issue of Ebony Magazine today in the mail and here is a quote by producer Allan Manings, "It wasn't really a spinoff," "It was one characer and we have changed that character".


So there is proof that Good Times was not a spinoff of Maude.

[TVFactFan]

Originally posted by ThomasE


There. You have a writer saying the same thing. John Ritter said it too in the 1st annual TV Land Awards promo. It's in all the Tv books. Besides, it's so obvious, James and Florida go from one show to another in same the same character form. If they wanted to switch to Chicago, that's their business. I wish they would have remained in NY or at least moved to Chicago, but they did what they wanted. Another fragmented spinoff was "Billy" from Head of the Class. He moved in with a female professor and married her so he could keep his green card and played his same character on Head of the Class.

Also in the article, Esther Rolle explains that her role on Good Times is far different from her role on Maude. She explained that the change of the Florida Evans character was natural. Her quote was "You are seeing a different side of Florida Evans, What I do in my madam's house is a facade, what i do at home is me" Now would I make all of this up????

[Sean Snow]

Originally posted by SOLOMON

Also in the article, Esther Rolle explains that her role on Good Times is far different from her role on Maude. She explained that the change of the Florida Evans character was natural. Her quote was "You are seeing a different side of Florida Evans, What I do in my madam's house is a facade, what i do at home is me" Now would I make all of this up????

Just because it's far different doesn't mean it's a different character. If Maude, for example, turned into a serial killer who liked to murder innocent chickens, she would still be the same Maude but Maude would be far different from the way she once was. It sounds more like she's saying the character's evolved.

[TVFactFan]

Originally posted by Sean Snow


Just because it's far different doesn't mean it's a different character. If Maude, for example, turned into a serial killer who liked to murder innocent chickens, she would still be the same Maude but Maude would be far different from the way she once was. It sounds more like she's saying the character's evolved.

Sean please don't try and debate this anymore because I have posted the statment by produer Allan Manings who said "it wasn't really a spinoff, it was one character and we have changed that character. So this is no longer a debate.

[ThomasE]

Well it still is up for debate if you ask me. We have two different sources saying two different things. It still appears spinoffish. Overall it is, anyone could see that. Anyway, SOLOMON, why are you so insistent on this topic anyway? Just wondering.