Jump to content

Punky Brewster


Faulkner

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I could be wrong, but I think "Strokes" started out fairly popular (then again, when everything else on NBC was in the basement ...)

 

Anyway, I agree with your distinction between the first and second waves. I always think of the second wave as being dominated by Miller-Boyett's shows, but you'd also get a show or two like "Blossom." (Somewhere to the left, closer to the "adult shows," would be a "Wonder Years" or a "Doogie Howser")

 

Seems like the kid-favoring shows fell out of favor at the basic networks, moving onto Nickelodeon and Disney. After all these years, TV must be onto, like, the seventh wave?

 

And to not stray too far from the topic, I got a kick out of Soleil and Cherie on TODAY last week, even if Soleil was tripling down on being excited/adorable after all these years.

Edited by Franko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

 

Exactly.

 

I put 1987 as the line of demarcation between the first wave and the second (which, like you say, was dominated by Miller-Boyett's output).  It isn't an EXACT line.  "Valerie"/"Valerie's Family"/"The Hogans"/"The Hogan Family" (which is a strange animal in this genre: a Miller/Boyett show that began as a star vehicle for adult Valerie Harper, then morphed into a showcase for Jason Bateman, Jeremy Licht and Danny Ponce once she was fired) premiered the year before; and "Growing Pains," a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing family show that was ostensibly about Alan Thicke and Joanna Kerns' characters but really wasn't, the year before that.  But, '87 is a good place to set down the marker, as that's the year FH, arguably the most successful and influential series from the second wave, premiered on ABC.

 

I'd also agree that "The Wonder Years" and "Doogie Howser, M.D." were closer to the "adult shows" than they were to the kid ones.  Kids and young adults watched them, but they weren't necessarily written and produced FOR them.  Same goes for "Family Ties," "Gimme a Break!" and "Who's the Boss?".  On each series, there was a balance of story and airtime between the kids and their adult counterparts (although, in "Gimme a Break!"'s case, you could certainly argue that every other character was just a prop for Nell Carter to lug around on set).

 

 

Pretty much.  For all intents and purposes, the end of "TGIF" on ABC's Friday night lineup was the end of all kid-centered sitcoms on the major networks.  After that, if you wanted that kind of show, you had to go to cable.

 

 

Exactly, lol.  By any measure, "Strokes" and "Facts of Life" were, at best, middling successes.  In fact, it's telling that Norman Lear never had his name associated with either series, even though his production companies, Tandem and T.A.T./Embassy, produced them both, and he had always put his name somewhere on new series in the past.  However, "Strokes" and FoL benefited from being on NBC at a time when even a middling success was better than no success at all.

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Speaking of Norman Lear, I keep forgetting that he apparently had some (minimal) early involvement with Who's the Boss? (as the Soaps Of Yesterday blog recently reminded me). I think the case was WTB? was originally an Embassy show, which meant the columnists were cool with associating Norman's name with it.

 

ETA: I've never watched "Perfect Strangers" all the way through, but it seems to have had a reverse. Starting out for adults/families, then softening for kid appeal. I have watched "Mr. Belvedere" all the way through and that definitely evolved from family show with a slight edge (like Wesley thinking Heather's birth control was a handheld game) to adopting more of the "TGIF ethos."

Edited by Franko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
 

tvratings_small.gif

TV Ratings: 1980-1981

[ TV Ratings Index ]     Jump to a Year: 1980, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90.

> 1980 - 1981    (Households with TV: 79,900,000)
RANK SHOW NETWORK

ESTIMATED AUDIENCE

1. Dallas

CBS

27,565,500

2. The Dukes of Hazzard CBS 21,812,700
3. 60 Minutes CBS 21,573,000
4. M*A*S*H CBS 20,534,300
5. The Love Boat ABC 19,415,700

6.

The Jeffersons CBS 18,776,500

7.

Alice CBS 18,297,100

8.

House Calls CBS 17,897,600

9.

Three's Company ABC 17,897,600

10.

Little House on the Prairie NBC 17,657,900

11.

One Day at a Time CBS 17,578,000

12.

Real People NBC 17,178,500
13. Archie Bunker's Place CBS 17,098,600
14. Magnum, P.I. CBS 16,779,000
15. Happy Days ABC 16,619,200
16. Too Close for Comfort ABC 16,619,200
17. Fantasy Island ABC 16,539,300
18. Trapper John, M.D. CBS 16,539,300
19. Diff'rent Strokes NBC 16,539,300

20.

Monday Night Football ABC 16,459,400

21.

Laverne & Shirley ABC 16,459,400

22.

That's Incredible ABC 16,379,500

23.

Hart to Hart ABC 15,900,100

24.

ABC Sunday Night Movie ABC 15,500,600

25.

CHiPS NBC 15,500,600

26.

The Facts of Life NBC 15,420,700

27.

Lou Grant CBS 15,260,900

28.

Knots Landing CBS 15,181,000

29.

NBC Monday Night Movie NBC 15,021,200

30.

The Waltons CBS 14,861,400


[ TV Ratings Index ]  [ ClassicTVHits.com Main Page ]


 

 

 
 

Privacy Statement | Disclaimer | Contact Us | © Copyright - ClassicTVHits.com.  All Rights Reserved.

 

,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Punky Brewster was also scheduled on Sunday nights.. usually against the popular CBS shows.

 

In fact, anytime baseball and/or any sports would run over... the show would air a 10 to 15 minute episode so that the younger viewers wouldnt be deprived of a new episode.. nor come in mid-way through it.

 

The revivial was way better than the new Saved by the Bell.  It was cute, charming, and finally resolved the one plot thread from the original.  It was a good final episode of the season (and I'm hoping to see more follow up on this if there is a season 2.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I think so, too.  For sure, WTB? wasn't Lear's kind of sitcom.  He preferred his shows to have an edge.  WTB?'s creators, Martin Cohan and Blake Hunter, believed they were making some sort of feminist statement.  Beyond the series' initial premise, however, it was a fairly standard family show/romantic comedy.

 

DEFINITELY agree about "Perfect Strangers" and "Mr. Belvedere."  The latter show's producers, Frank Dungan and Jeff Stein, have gone on-record with their ambivalence about their association with the show.  For one thing, it was 20th Century Fox Television who approached Dungan and Stein with the "Belvedere" character, which they owned the rights to, rather than the other way around.  Dungan and Stein were just wrapping up "Barney Miller" when they signed a development deal with 20th, and every other series they had pitched hadn't sold, so they were more-or-less compelled to develop "Belvedere," despite their hesitation toward working on a "family show."  Moreover, they LOATHED doing Very Special Episodes, like the one about the camp counselor who was molesting Wesley and his friends (or something).  However, VSE's always attracted attention from the media; and as Stein said in an interview about the release of the complete "Barney Miller" on DVD, they thought it'd be cool to see a "Belvedere" episode highlighted in that week's TV Guide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Am I the only one who wanted to not have this plot resolved? It was an unsolved mystery which I felt should have been left unsolved. Life is sometimes sh*tty like that, and we don't always get what we want.

 

Please register in order to view this content

 

On the other hand, I can see why the producers felt the need to address this plot point in the revival. It presumably has gotten people to tune in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Very interesting discussion that has been going on in this thread! It got me thinking about a number of things (my astonishment at the fact that Full House began in the 1980s, I always associate it with the 90s, Candace Cameron and I are in the same age group??) like the vagaries of the bygone era of Sunday evening sitcoms and family programming (Punky Brewster and Rags To Riches), which I guess might have been started by Disney and the Wonderful World Of Disney Sunday night programming, if I am not mistaken.

 

About the show. Last night, I watched the final two episodes of Season 1 and my first impression was that the show leans heavily into 80s nostalgia, but I don't mind it. It's syrupy at times but there were some genuinely earned poignant moments throughout.

The kids are well-cast. I can see why they wanted to make the two boys adoptees, to show how Punky, an adoptee herself would be open to adopting and fostering kids but honestly, I was perfectly fine with the aspect of the two boys being her and her ex-husband's biological sons, especially since the show is already leaning into Travis' Latinx heritage. Caribbean families (Puerto Rican and Dominican included) often have diverse skin hues and hair textures, between siblings, even with the same parents. They could simply have shown that Travis has a parent that looks similar to the two boys. Aside drom that, I would have preferred that the kids statuses be revealed in the second or third episode, rather than in the pilot episode, where it felt as if a LOT of expository details were being squeezed into the first episode.

 

I can see both perspectives on the revelation of the identity of Punky's bio-mother. The story arc was interesting to follow over the course of the season, on one hand and it embued the show with a sense of gravitas that maybe distinguished the show from only having light content. OTOH, I think the "mystery could have been extended, at least to cliffhanger at the season's end. There might be room in season 2 for reversals though, as it is well established that Punky's mother is prone to acts of disappearance.

As the episodes went by, you could notice improvement in the writing and cast interaction. It will be interesting to see how, with greater access to COVID-19 vaccines, there might be less tension in set, in regards to strict virus-mitigating protocols (the sanitization should be permanent though) and how the cast might be able to focus on acting and interacting and how that might affect the end product and what viewers see. It couldn't have been easy to film during these times, especially with such a predominantly young cast.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation.
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
    • I’m trying to think which actors VW were working with at the time, and none of them had been there for a while. Even like Mac and Ada didn’t have that big of a part in Rachel’s storyline.  And Jamie was involved with all that movie stuff.
    • Brooke did ads before ATWT too. That probably helped get her the job. After ATWT she seemed to branch more into hosting, along with ads.  I think I saw Kelley in an ad or two, but you're right she wasn't on as much. 
    •   Thanks for sharing these. I wonder if Charles might have been in the running for Adam. I know Preacher was a bit of a bad boy at times on EON, but Neal seemed to be a step down, and Robert Lupone had played a similar part on AMC. Given the huge cast turnover at this point I wonder who thought they had been there long enough to go.  Laura Malone/Chris Rich would get a remote within the next year. 
    • Interesting.  It seems to allude to that statement that Warren Burton made around that time about some AW actors getting special treatment.  I wonder who was resentful about not getting to go. 
    • Good morning, boys!  I figured that it was time that our Gio was introduced into the hotness thread

      Please register in order to view this content

      @ranger1rg I even included a close up of his face for ya!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy