Talk:The Brady Bunch

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Brady Bunch article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The Brady Bunch was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 7, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Comedy High‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television High‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Reunion movies

It is probably unfair to describe the reunion movies as failures, since they brough in high ratings. It is fair to characterize the attempts at sequel and spinoff series as failures, since none were renewed as they would have been had their ratings been high enough. Apparently people like their sequels in small doses, at least with reagards to The Brady Bunch. No matter -- a generation of now middle-aged schoolboys grew up desiring "Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!"

Reworded. Mike H 12:01, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

That's Marcia, Marcia, MarCIa...

Pacian 06:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe he was referencing "Marsha, Marsha, Marsha," the Fanboy and Chum Chum episode? JK. ;) SalmonCat (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Episode every day?

The article reads, "Since its first show date, an episode of the show has been on TV somewhere in the world every single day." It this possible? During the six days that followed the pilot, surely there couldn't have been that same pilot syndicated every single day. Doesn't this comment mean that the show has been on TV every day somewhere in the world ever since it began syndication? I'm no expert on the Brady Bunch air dates, but the wording as it is now seems very hard to believe. — Eje211 03:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I changed it. Mike H 04:44, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

How is it that an "encyclopedia" can make claims such as , “Since its first airing in syndication in September 1975, an episode of the show has been broadcast somewhere in the United States and abroad every single day of every single year through at least 2007,” and then state that a citation is needed. Of course a citation is needed – or such a statement needs to be removed. How is Wikipedia to be taken seriously when flimsy or no substantiation is provided for such sweeping claims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.62.16 (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, the Brady's have been in run in syndication constantly since its initial run. You don't need a book to know that, you just need to have grown up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.117.229 (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screencaps?

Can anyone gets a screencap or two for the article? I'd particularly like to see one for the 9-square title card. --FuriousFreddy 23:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Carol

It says Carol's husband's circumstances were never explained...I'm pretty sure Carol's husband died. I'll watch the DVDs again but I'm quite certain of it...they parodied it on the '90s movies. Mike H 09:01, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

On the original series, Carol's first husband was never mentioned. The girls' did not refer to their birth father once. Sherwood Schwartz has stated many times, that Carol was divorced, but ABC frowned on that, so he decidedly left it ambiguous, by never having him referred to at all!Jude86 16:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She was widowed. Prenigmamann (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Prenigmamann[reply]

No, although dialog in the pilot meant she must have been either widowed or divorced, the reason she was single with three daughters was never put forth in any way, other than she had been most unhappy about whatever had happened. Meanwhile, in a scene having to do with Bobby and a snap of his mum, it was very strongly hinted that Mike's first wife had died. Throughout the whole run of the series, the other parents were never brought up again in any way. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. She was widowed. Prenigmamann (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Prenigmamann[reply]

Taylor or Tyler for Carol's last name ? (74.174.59.10 (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Carol's maiden name is Tyler. It is unknown what happened to Carol's first husband, Mr. Martin. Schwartz wanted them to be divorced, but ABC did not allow that to be mentioned, and ABC said she was widowed. There are two conflicting decisions between Schwartz and ABC about what happened to Mr. Martin. It is unknown what happened to him. The movies that parodied the series do not reflect the story of the actual series. 108.0.244.168 (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons References

Not appropriate in this article... it takes up a third of the article, belongs in a Simpsons page --Cshay 19:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons has referenced The Brady Bunch and its sequels in several episodes, including:

The couch gag in the eighth-season episodes "Home Sweet Home-Diddily-Dum-Doodily" and "Lisa the Iconoclast". The screen is divided into nine panels (a la the opening credits); Lisa, Marge and Grampa are in the top panels; Maggie, the couch and Bart in the middle; and Snowball II, Homer and Santa's Little Helper in the bottom row. Near the end of the gag, everyone (except Grampa) run out of their frames and onto the couch.
In the eighth-season episode, "The Simpsons Spin-Off Showcase" (which detailed three "pilots" based on The Simpsons), the final skit has the Simpsons starring in a variety show "as themselves." The skit even includes a teen-aged actress "replacing" Lisa (who found the concept so ridiculous she declined to participate, much like how Geri Reischl stepped into the role of Jan when Eve Plumb was a no-show).
In "Eight Misbehavin', Lisa remarks about being "wildly popular", only to become a superegotistical freak who upsets her classmates, much like Jan in "Miss Popularity."
In the "Last Tap Dance in Springfield" episode, Lisa is a marginally talented dancer who is not invited to participate in a much-anticipated recital, much in the same manner as the clumsy Jan in "Try, Try Again."
In the "Treehouse of Horror XI" segment titled "Scary Dreams Can Come True" (a "Hansel and Gretel" parody), the witch says she has a boyfriend. When Bart asks for a name, the witch declares hastily, "George ... Cauldron," much how Jan made up imaginary boyfriend "George Glass."
Much of the first segment of "The Regina Monologues" is inspired by the Brady episode "The Treasure of Sierra Avenue." Bart plans to spend a $1,000 bill he found (and Mr. Burns had lost, only for Marge to make Bart advertise for its owner; Mr. Burns arrives later to claim his cash, but refuses to pay a reward. In the Brady version, the boys had found a wallet loaded with $1,100 in a vacant lot, are made to advertise for its owner, and turn it over to its rightful owner (who offers a reward, unlike the selfish Burns).

Great. Put it on the Simpsons page. Or, if you must, a summary of it in a Trivia section here. That detail just isn't relevant to this article. Moncrief 19:24, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Production info

It might be good to state that the show was a single-camera 35mm film production at Paramount Studios (as opposed to three-camera on video tape). I'd add it but I'm not sure which section would be appropriate. It would be nice if this kind of info had a category in the standard info box as seen on the top right of the Brady Bunch entry.

Cut out Charicter

I rember a long time ago, on Nick at Night, they said that thare was original another brady chils, a red headed girl, she was bad behaved,and was recorded in many of the first shows, but was cut out, anyone have any information?

nvm, I found this:

Phoebe Brady was a promotional gimmick that Nickelodeon created in 1998 when the Brady Bunch began airing on Nickelodeon. Phoebe was suspose to represent an evil 4th sister who whenever something bad happened on the show, she was responsbile. The premise of the promotion was that when the show went into reruns Phoebe was cut from the show because no one wanted to see a bad Brady. This whole concept which included interviews with original cast members was purely false.

Rlk89 19:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I remember episodes with her in it. It's the Mandela Effect again /s. 75.148.220.25 (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I, too was interested in this "mystery" Brady. What a stupid thing for Nickelodeon to make up random crap like that. stupids.

For anyone who is tempted to add it into the main article — please don't. That's all Phoebe was — a promotional gimmick that in the first place was poorly conceived, she was a brat in the second place and most importantly (from a Wiki standpoint) is not notable beyond that. RIP, Phoebe! [[Briguy52748 21:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

I disagree. It was a pretty major marketing thing. Just because it's fake, that doesn't mean we can't put it in the article if we acknowledge it as such. I mean, we have an entire article on Bigfoot. --Agent Aquamarine 13:49, 8 January 2007

Nick at Nite ran a similar gag when The Cosby Show first began running on that network, naming the goldfish flushed down in the second episode "Lamont" (and even going so far as to make the ad in a style similar to The E! True Hollywood Story. WAVY 10 15:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A likely inappropriate rumor to include but it was significant in my memory

Does anyone have any links or recollection to a very common rumor that circulated around the late 70s that Susan Olsen had gotten heavily into drugs and other vices and overdosed or committed suicide? I recall that it was a rumor spread deliberately in the wake of the overdose death of Anissa Jones, a troubled child actress whose Family Affair show had come on the air and went off the air slightly before the Brady Bunch. Anissa died of a drug overdose under suspicious circumstances in 1976, and her death touched many child stars, including the cast of the Brady Bunch (Eve Plumb, in particular, who appeared on Family Affair at one point, I recall). The supposed prosocial idea behind the rumor was that it was a way to flag people who didn't care or thought it would be fine if what they thought of as a dysfunctional youngest child (Cindy Brady) got heavily into drugs or whatever and died, and then to do something to help those flagged as so dysfunctional. It also jives with the interest in prosocial TV shows, "Afterschool Specials", and in particular Eve Plumb's performance and popular reaction to "Dawn: Portrait of a Teenage Runaway", and similar psychological TV dramas from the time, like Linda Blair in "Sarah T.: Portrait of a Teenage Alcoholic" and Dick van Dyke in "The Morning After". The story of Anissa Jones is well-known today in part due to it's story being told on websites like Morbidly Hollywood, but as I recall the rumor about Susan Olsen and the tie-in to looking for dysfunctional kids was very well-known as well at the time, late 70s, very early 80s. -- Allison

I recall the rumour repeated frequently in the late 1970s in Melbourne, Australia, was that The Brady Bunch only ended when actor Susan Olsen was killed in a car accident, and the cast and makers of the show were too traumatised to continue it without her. I suspect it was spawned by people misremembering and conflating the true story of the death of Anissa Jones - whose Family Affair character I believe served as the model for Cindy Brady's character, wardrobe and hairstyle. Perhaps also us Australian children were at a loss to explain how such a popular and perennial show could have been cancelled when so many us of were avidly watching it after school every day. I do not think the Olsen rumour was conceived deliberately in the wake of Jones' death in a knowing or malicious manner but was like many urban legends where the storytellers actually believe the tale. Asa01 23:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia being removed

Yeah, I know I placed some of the trivia regarding the Bradys' house, cars and telephones in the article. But given the recent push to cut trivia from articles, I've decided to remove the information (save for info on the house outside, which is interesting) from the article. Simply put, I no longer believe the trivia — no matter how well-intentioned it was — serves the good of Wikipedia. [[Briguy52748 19:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)]] BTW — There are some other editing changes forthcoming, all to make this a better article. Hope you'll like![reply]

Let's make this a good article

An addition here — the thing I'd really like to do is make this a WP:GA, so now I'm making it official — I am going to ask for help in editing this article, cleaning it up as appropriate and then moving it forward for a peer review. With the proper amount of work, I feel really good about this article's chances of becoming a good article. So whatayasay — let's make this a good article and maybe have it featured someday!!! [[Briguy52748 21:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

Second Jan

i seem to remember there being a different actress playing jan for a couple of episodes. is this true. if it is, it should goin the article somewhere.The mitten man 04:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)The Mitten Man[reply]

It's already in the article under the Brady Bunch Variety Hour section. None of the actors were replaced during the five-year run of the original series. Whoville 10:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Brady Braves

In a third-season episode, each Brady was given an Indian name by the chief of the tribe, whose grandson had run away but returned at Mike's advice.

Mike - big Eagle of Large Nest
Carol - Yellow Flower of Many Petals
Greg - Stalking Wolf
Marcia - Willow Dancing in Wind
Peter - offered "Middle Buffalo" and "Sleeping Lizard" but Peter didn't like either; the chief was never shown getting back to him
Jan - Dove of Morning Light
Bobby - Little Bear Who Loses Way
Cindy - Wandering Blossom
Alice - Squaw in Waiting

Any place for this in the main article or in the episodes list?

GBC 20:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DIDN'T THEY LIVE IN SACRAMENTO?

I can't be too sure, but I think I recall that the Bradys lived in Sacramento,CA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.162.157.189 (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No, they didn't. See The_Brady_Bunch#The_Brady_house. Whoville 11:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC) I think you are thinking of Eight is Enough. That was set in Sacramento, California. Recnet 13:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps the Partridges, who lived in San Pueblo, a fictional town located in the Bay Area near San Francisco.

They took pains to never name the city. In the episode where Alice is secretly sending Jan gifts because Jan is the middle child, we see the mailing envelope to one of the gifts Jan receives. The city is "City" on the envelope. As explained in the show, that meant it was local mail. Apparently, at the time, if you used "City" as your city on your envelope, it stayed in the same city. I've never heard of that before, but that's what they did in the show. BillFromDDTDigest (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! trivia

The following piece of made-up trivia has been added numerous times by several anonymous editors and will continue to be removed every time it's re-inserted:

On the 2004 Jeopardy! (television show) Tournament of Champions, the Final Jeopardy answer was "As a regular character, she was the oldest virgin on the television show The Brady Bunch". All three contestants gave the response "Who was Marsha Brady?" only to learn that they were all wrong (the correct response being "Who was Alice Nelson?").

The IP addresses responsible have included:

Note that the material has been re-inserted several times with misleading edit summaries and other minor edits to disguise the contribution. See Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Whoville (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional IPs added to above list. -Jordgette (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a joke. I watched the Tounament of Champions show in question and personally witnessed the Final Jeopardy question/answer. You might find the issue amusing; some might find it to be cute. It is, however, no joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.48.148.162 (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite a credible source besides your own "memory". Whoville (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing the research as we speak; when I find a source, I will repost the comment with the proper credible citation. I hope that you will then have the courtesy to issue a public apology to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.48.148.162 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 24 January 2008

I certainly don't recall any references in any of the scripts to Alice being a "virgin". It is unlikely that Jeopardy would make such a claim. Is there actually any reliable information about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.117.229 (talk) 08:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is absolutely false. j-archive.com has all of the clues from that tournament. I have scrubbed the reference from the List of The Brady Bunch characters article. -Jordgette (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brady House photos

Recently, I uploaded a modern photo of the Brady House and Dilling Street lamppost to The Brady House section. They lasted seven days before being deleted. One nighttime image was difficult to take, due to poor street and house lighting, but, with enhancement, it may be useful to those interested in what the house looks like today (2008). The other image's quality was superior, yet both were deleted. I'd be happy to attach them again, unless there is objection. Yoho2001 (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cousin Oliver interview should NOT be deleted!

Comment moved from Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines:

A certain great Robbie Rist interview which is a fantastic interiew keeps being deleted for being "promotional", yet ALL links are promotional and thus if you guys keep deleting the Robbie Rist "Cousin Oliver" interview than you should delete ALL the links because THEY ALL ARE PROMOTIONAL INTERVIEWS IN SOME FORM OR ANOTHER! And it's a much better site and interview than ANY OF THE OTHERS. It's BS! SO IF THIS KEEPS HAPPENING I AM GOING TO FIGHT TO GET THE OTHERS DELETED AS WELL!

AND THERE'S ONE LINK FOR A "SUPERGROOVY" PAGE THAT DOESN'T EVEN WORK ANYMORE YET THAT'S NOT DELETED!

KEEP THIS INTERVIEW ALIVE!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijmt (talk • contribs) 20 June 2008

Address of "real" house

I removed the unsourced address for the house used in exterior shots. Even if this address can be sourced, it is a potential privacy issue for the current owners of the house. The article does mention that there have been prior cases of trespassing because the house was recognized. Stan Simmons (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minutiae and old very old discussions

I like the way the screencaps are taken from poor quality tapes, instead of decent quality DVDs which represent the actual picture quality of the show Retro Agnostic (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what kind of car did mike brady drive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.147.219 (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember this is not a forum for general discussion. I think pointless off the cuff complaints and arbitrary general questions fall under that restriction, IMHO. Anyway, most of this talk page is quite old and of little concequence. Could someone please take the time to archive it? I'll do it eventually otherwise. Njsustain (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of fictional famous visitors?

I must have missed this, but at some point the fictional famous characters were removed from the "Celebrity Guests" sectioning detailing famous "real and fictional" people that visited the Bradys. Two notable ones that were removed were "Dear Libby" and the son (or was it grandson) of a man killed by Jesse James.

I don't really have a big dog in the fight either way on this one. If I had a preference, I would say that we do include the fictional famous people because, at the moment anyway, the section is not about "guest stars appearing as themselves"...the section is really noting the improbability of a supposedly ordinary family meeting that many famous people in only five years. But, I don't feel that strongly. However, if we are going to leave out the fictional characters, we should change the entire section to be a section on "Guest Stars appearing as themselves". --PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Scene worth including?

I'm curious if this deleted scene is worth including in the article. The logic side of my brain says "no", but the emotional side says "yes" because this is just so out of context with the rest of the show.

I remembered seeing this as a kid, yet it apparently disappeared in syndication because I haven't seen it since I was very young. When you really think about it, the scene was so wrong on so many levels. I am just shocked that a show that wouldn't mention divorce would have ever put this scene on the air.

Deleted Brady Bunch scene

--PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "deleted" scene as such. I've read somewhere that the scene has indeed shown up in syndicated local broadcasts through the years but was cut now and then, as were other pickup scenes in many episodes, to make room for more local commercials. This can go in the article if it's reliably sourced. It's on the DVD, by the way. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was a Brady Bunch fanatic as a kid. I knew the original episodes so well, each time I saw one of the later syndicated edits, I'd try to remember what scene was missing. In other words, every episode has a "deleted scene"...so I'm not sure this one is worth mentioning. -Jordgette (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless at least some meaningful coverage in reliable sources shows up (rather than YouTube posts and online chats), it wouldn't be. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't be considered "citeable" but, for those interested, here's an interesting discussion of this topic. Too bad there's not a citation on the answer to the question, because the answer sounds pretty literate. Discussion of deleted scene - --PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article structure

I rearranged the structure of the article based on article structures from Category:FA-Class television articles without removing content. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sequence

I'm sort of confused as to why this article is structured the way it is. Why do we have the sections on the location of the house and Reed vs the producers before we even get the show summary? I understand that chronologically, the house may have been selected as part of the planning process, but it goes into too much minutia early in the article (LAPD badges noticed in the movie, etc. ). Its giving sidebars before the important stuff. This stuff would be better suited later in the article.68.105.38.61 (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! I will switch the overview and production sections. -Jordgette (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Reed vs, the producers

Stop changing the description of Robert Reed's discontent. Unless someone can find otherwise, there is nothing in the sources that say he became "increasingly jaded" or was concerned with typecasting. He just thought the writing was sophomoric, and according to the Barry Williams book, he felt that way from the pilot episode to the last episode. There is no indication that he was jaded, let alone increasingly so. -Jordgette [talk] 23:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The Honeymoon" and "Greg Gets Grounded"

I noticed the article mentions that these two episoded do not have an epilogue after the 9 square pictures of the cast members cover the screen, but some claim that they remember these two epilogues got lost when the show became syndicated and networks made their own edits. Does anyone know if these claims are true? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC) The alleged epilogue in the pilot, "The Honeymoon", supposedly has everyone in their hotel room and Mike or Carol saying something like "the honeymoon wasn't the same without you". The one that supposedly is in "Greg Gets Grounded" has Peter and Bobby playing around with their frogs after the contest ended. Do these closing scenes exist, or did people making these claims not remember correctly? 108.0.244.168 (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Brady Bunch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 12:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will do this review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, several things stand out.

A lot of content without WP:ICs.
A cast section that excludes the most important characters (and includes lots of parenthetical extraneous content for guest stars).
Many short paragraphs (mostly uncited).
Bare URLs
Partially formatted citations.
problems with both section of the toolbox on this page to the right (5 dead links and a circular redirect).

Due to the amount of uncited content (E.g. every bulletpoint in the "Specials, documentaries, and other revivals" section, all four paragraphs in the "DVD releases" section, and many other wholely uncited paragraphs) I am quickfailing this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I wouldn't be surprised if the original show portion of the show didn't deserve to be expanded. If you don't count the stuff on all the sequels and specials, there is really not that much about the show here. Since you have full books as sources, I think there is probably more content out there.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Casting of child actors

I saw an interview on TV many years ago, with one of the executives (possibly Sherwood Schwartz); it was part of a documentary of The Brady Bunch, I believe. The executive stated that they cast two groups of children: one consisted of blonde girls and brunette boys; the other consisted of blonde boys and brunette girls. From these two groups, the final set of children would be selected based on the subsequent casting of the parental roles. Since Carol Brady (Florence Henderson) was blonde and Mike Brady (Robert Reed) was brunette, the producers ultimately cast the corresponding set of six child actors. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? In the documentary, they briefly showed a still photo of the "alternate" child actors (three blonde boys and three brunette girls). It was quite jarring to see that photo, after years of watching the six children who eventually did get cast! (See here: HISTORY OF THE BRADY BUNCH.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brady Bunch references I know

I know several references to the Brady Bunch:

In the Nickelodeon show T.U.F.F. Puppy, an episode featured a spoof of the theme song, but about the agents from TUFF and DOOM living together.
In another Nickelodeon show, Fanboy and Chum Chum, an episode was named "Marsha, Marsha, Marsha." This is a reference to Jan's famous line, "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia." The names of Marsha and Marcia are pronounced the same way.
In yet another Nickelodeon show, The Fairly OddParents, Timmy Turner had his mother replaced with Carol Brady when he realized he was the subject of a reality show called "Timmy TV." Cartoon versions of all the Brady Bunch main characters appeared at the end of the episode.
An episode of a show on the Sprout channel called Jim Henson's Pajanimals was called "Try, Try Again." This is also a Brady Bunch episode.
And, last but not least, in my made-up show, The Browne Boyz, one character is obsessed with a spoof of the Brady Bunch called "The Grady Gang."

Just wanted to share my trivia. SalmonCat (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Brady house

The exterior of the Brady house was also used in establishing shots in an anti-smoking educational film starring Marion Ross and Tom Bosley (AKA Mr. and Mrs. C) that we were shown in junior high health class...PurpleChez (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPLIT of The Brady Brides into its own article

A split of that portion of the article was attempted here, without any talk page discussion per WP:SPLIT, nor any attribution, required per WP:CWW. The content was moved to The Brady Brides (2017), but because of the misleading title (it aired in 1981, and there's no update that I know of that happened in 2017) and the improper split, I took it to AfD. Maybe the split question could be resolved there, but if not, it could be discussed here later. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brady Bunch Parody

In a episode of "Monk" Adrian Monk is devastated to find out that his favorite 1970's childhood family show "The Coopers" having a succesful surgeon with his wife and their two sons and two daugthers plus an adorable dog-in real life had terrible lives..the eldest son married an actress who played his TV sister {they divorced } while the Youngest son become a drug addict and the oldest sister became a best selling tell all book who killed a backmailer who knew her secret..that she had cheated to get a award 35 years after the show ended...after Monk was knocked out by the killer he had a dream sequence in which he played the oldest oldest son who figured out the crime..this was filmed on a recreation of the old Brady Bunch Kitchen and living room set..of The Brady Bunch....show! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.32.94 (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Entitled vs. Titled

I have been reverted twice on this page for changing "entitled" to "titled" in reference to the title of an episode. The definition of entitled is to deserve or be given something. The definition of titled is when something is given a name. For example, the article currently says 'in the first-season episode entitled "Lost Locket, Found Locket"'. This is an incorrect use of the word entitled. The episode does not deserve the title "Lost Locket, Found Locket", it has been given the name (titled) "Lost Locket, Found Locket." This is a simple check in the dictionary to verify why I have made the edits. Entitled2Titled (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While these words have been considered synonymous, from what I've seen checking a few online sites ([1][2][3][4]) discussing the differences between the two words, they are preferring titled over entitled when talking simply about naming something, like an episode title. They don't exactly say that it's wrong to use entitled where titled should be used, as literature from decades and centuries ago have used entitled in the context of titled. However, they do point out that entitled is about giving a right, privilege, etc. (and might include a title that is associated with said right, privilege, etc.), as opposed to just a name. With what I've read at these sites, I'm tending to agree with using titled over entitled for this situation, but I'd rather see additional opinions about this. MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They should be "titled." It's clearer/less ambiguous, and it's and one fewer syllable/two fewer letters to have to read. -Jordgette [talk] 23:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just finished responding to Entitled2Titled's post on my talk page, and then I saw that there is this discussion here. While I encourage you to read all of what I wrote there, here is the most pertinent part of what I said: "Your definition is just one of the definitions for the word. I don't know what dictionary you looked at but apparently it doesn't include all definitions. Other dictionaries not only include other definitions but list this first (which usually means that it's the most common usage of the word) including Wiktionary (an extension of WP): wiktionary:entitled — see also wiktionary:entitle." Basically, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". *Pinging Drmargi. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you would object to making the language in the article less ambiguous. There are (according to some) two definitions of "entitled" but only one definition of "titled." -Jordgette [talk] 15:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jordgette, First, I'm wondering if you read the rest of my reply to Entitled2Titled on my talk page? Anyway, how in the world is it "ambiguous"? What makes you think that? Have you heard someone say that they weren't sure what it meant? Everyone should know what it means. Entitled2Titled didn't give that as a reason for the hundreds of changes he's made in the last few weeks (most of which have been reverted by different editors). His only reason is incorrect (as he said "the definition"). Do you know what the prefix en- means? It means "to make". By taking that away is basically dumbing down the English language. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote, "I'm tending to agree with using titled over entitled for this situation, but I'd rather see additional opinions about this" and I'm providing an additional opinion like you asked for. Yep, I read it. It's ambiguous because it has two definitions and has the potential to confuse people. Low potential, but potential nonetheless. And, it's just shorter. Unless you can demonstrate that "titled" is not a word, I think we should go with "titled." But feel free to call a RfD on this and waste more people's time. -Jordgette [talk] 15:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're replying to me (although you didn't address me), but you quoted what MPFitz1968 said. If you don't have evidence that there has been confusion about the word then that's not an issue. There are words that have more than two definitions and no one claims they're ambiguous. It's not up to me to "demonstrate that titled is not a word". It's up to the person(s) who want to change a word that has been there for years that another word is an improvement. Let me quote from the first link that MPFitz1968 gave: "When they are synonymous with named or called, there is no substantive difference between entitled and titled. Some people object to this use entitled, but the objection is baseless." But if you think that this discussion is a waste of time then you don't have to be a part of it. –Musdan77 (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thanks for clearing up any confusion. Even under the premise that both words are equally clear, my opinion is that shorter is better. But my opinion is also that this debate is absurdly trivial. -Jordgette [talk] 02:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter isn't always better – unless you're editing Simple English Wikipedia. And I disagree that it's "trivial", but apparently it is moot, because Entitled2Titled has not responded in the discussion – or even made any more edits – since he started this section. –Musdan77 (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Political commentary

The Premise section of the article currently states "Noticeably absent is any political commentary..." While I agree the show is largely apolitical, gender equality was a theme in several episodes, including "A Clubhouse Is Not a Home", "The Grass Is Always Greener", "The Liberation of Marcia Brady", and "The Driver's Seat". "Double Parked" also features the family campaigning against city hall to save a park. Hoof Hearted (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]