Why is "Golden Girls" so iconic but not "Designing Women"?

[GoldenBoy79]

Originally Posted by Zoneboy

From your perspective, exactly how is it a ripoff?

For what it's worth, the Sun Sentinel called it a 'classy Golden Girls rip-off' when it debuted in September 1986.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/198...worth-thomason

[Heenan Fan]

It's pretty hard to laugh at a TV show when the producers and writers are using the show to constantly force their political views down your throat. Golden Girls was great, Designing Women was garbage.

[king of comedy]

There wasn't much political views on Golden Girls.

[Heenan Fan]

Originally Posted by king of comedy

There wasn't much political views on Golden Girls.

I know. I was talking about Designing Women.

[Zoneboy]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoy79

For what it's worth, the Sun Sentinel called it a 'classy Golden Girls rip-off' when it debuted in September 1986.

Thanks, but not what I was looking for. I specifically quoted Big D In Charge to get their perspective as to why it was ripoff. That article does nothing except give examples of how both shows are similar. If two shows being similar is grounds to declare one a ripoff then there should be plenty of others that qualify as well.

[JR1]

I liked DW, but never got into it to the level I did GG. It wasn't quite as magical as GG at its peak.

The DW creator certainly looked to GG for inspiration, but I wouldn't call DW a "ripoff." It's like when "Friends" became popular- you saw other shows follow that mold/put their spin on it. Post-GG, we had DW, "Living Single," "Sex and the City," "Desperate Housewives," etc. Course, "The Facts of Life" had "The Power of 4," but it didn't start out that way.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by Alan Brady's Hair

I'd say:

1. The Golden cast were uniformly better actors, and the characters felt more real;
2. The Golden writing was faster and more conversational, while Designing was more a series of speeches that could get tedious;
3. Golden was pretty consistent through its run, while Designing dropped off drastically. By about season 3, Designing ' s self - righteousness was approaching MASH levels.

I think that DW also doesn't hold up as well because it was at the end of the day, very much a product of the '80s.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by megamanj2004

Because The Golden Girls has a stable cast and far better writing and a consistent Top 25 show for 6 of its 7 seasons. Oh and a legend in Betty White.

Designing Women never really got off the ground until Season 4. DW also had a revolving door of cast changes towards the end of its run once Delta Burke and Jean Smart left. Not quite as memorable as TGG.

The production of Designing Women was not a well oiled machine in the end. The Thomasons left the show to concentrate on Evening Shade and then became more concerned with getting Bill Clinton elected than the shows they were producing, which merely became platforms for them to (quite wrongly) broadcast Democrat propaganda.

Delta Burke was an ill women, she was suffering a nervous breakdown, had eating problems and was being hounded by the press - rather than sit her down and tell her she needed help and write her out for half a season (as would happen today) the production outcast her and called 'difficult'.

Annie Potts was promised her pregnancy would be written into Season 6 and it wasn't, she was therefore told to cover it up and had bad storylines written for her that didn't involve her doing much.

And Dixie Carter (a strong Republican) was forced to sprout more and more Democratic political mumbo jumbo in order to convince America to vote for Bill Clinton. All of this she would have found very difficult!

['80sSitcoms]

Originally Posted by JR1

The DW creator certainly looked to GG for inspiration

Can we be sure of this? GG premiered in September 1985; DW premiered only 1 year later. It's already been said that Linda based Julia and Suzanne on their characters in Filthy Rich, and Charlene and Mary Jo on characters from a project they were on together (I've forgotten the name but it's in Delta's book; I'd have to look it up). So it could be just a grand coincidence that the shows have similar personality types.

[TMC]

I think that the main differences between both shows is that DW was definitely deeper and better written than GG. It could be far more cerebral and less insult-driven. While GG mostly went for the easy joke, DW went for character moments. At the end of the day however, DW just seems hopelessly dated while GG holds up much better. Shows that deal too much with the current news/fads tend to be less enjoyable in reruns. And DW absolutely guilty of it with those massive shoulder pads and their need to take on social issues.

['80sSitcoms]

"better written"? "went for the easy joke"? Wow...I'd agree you could say that about the later seasons, but certainly not the earlier ones.