- Awards
- 11
I knew Three's Company was based on Britain's Man About the House, but I've never watched the latter. I'll give it a gander.
- Awards
- 3
I grew up watching Three's Company and loved it. Tuesday nights were must-see TV back then, with Happy Days, Laverne and Shirley, followed by Three's Company. I still enjoy most of the reruns, except for the last season where every episode was about Jack, seemingly to pave the way for the lousy spin-off Three's a Crowd.
Suzanne burned a lot of bridges with her contract shenanigans. I don't think she ever admitted she was wrong in asking for a raise, but rather, she said she could have went about it differently. In the long run, getting fired worked out for her, but she was persona non grata in Hollywood for many years before reinventing herself with the Thighmaster, writing books and starring in "Step by Step." She tries to portray herself as a trailblazer for women in Hollywood, but she really was greedy and did not care how her actions affected the rest of the cast and crew (she missed several rehearsals and tapings, and the writers reportely had to write two different scripts for each episode, one with Chrissy and one without, since they didn't know if Suzanne would show up or not).
Joyce did appear on Suzanne's talk show, but she did not discuss her DUI. I think part of the purpose of the show was to clear the air between the two, and Joyce also specifically wanted to talk about the joy and laughter that Three's Company provided for the cast and for viewers. They kind of touched on Suzanne's contract debacle, and Suzanne admitted thinking of the show as a business venture and could see why she pissed off everyone. For fans of Three's Company, the Youtube video of their reunion is worth watching.
As for Lana, she was my mother's favorite character on the show. I could totally see Suzanne being jealous of Ann. She had her moments, but Lana was one of my least favorite characters. I think the writers made the mistake of making her too self-absorbed and not interacting in a genuine human way with the rest of the cast. Most of the time, she would waltz into the threesome's apartment and ask for Jack, fall all over him and then walk out. It would have been a mistake to make her a Mrs. Roper clone, but the character may have worked better if she had some of Mrs. Roper's warmth and interacted more with Janet and Chrissy. Ironically, she was given her best material in her last episode. Janet's reaction was priceless when Lana was trying to point out about Jack's "affair" with one of his roommates, and she told Janet, "And I thought Chrissy was the dumb one!" LOL.
Suzanne burned a lot of bridges with her contract shenanigans. I don't think she ever admitted she was wrong in asking for a raise, but rather, she said she could have went about it differently. In the long run, getting fired worked out for her, but she was persona non grata in Hollywood for many years before reinventing herself with the Thighmaster, writing books and starring in "Step by Step." She tries to portray herself as a trailblazer for women in Hollywood, but she really was greedy and did not care how her actions affected the rest of the cast and crew (she missed several rehearsals and tapings, and the writers reportely had to write two different scripts for each episode, one with Chrissy and one without, since they didn't know if Suzanne would show up or not).
Joyce did appear on Suzanne's talk show, but she did not discuss her DUI. I think part of the purpose of the show was to clear the air between the two, and Joyce also specifically wanted to talk about the joy and laughter that Three's Company provided for the cast and for viewers. They kind of touched on Suzanne's contract debacle, and Suzanne admitted thinking of the show as a business venture and could see why she pissed off everyone. For fans of Three's Company, the Youtube video of their reunion is worth watching.
As for Lana, she was my mother's favorite character on the show. I could totally see Suzanne being jealous of Ann. She had her moments, but Lana was one of my least favorite characters. I think the writers made the mistake of making her too self-absorbed and not interacting in a genuine human way with the rest of the cast. Most of the time, she would waltz into the threesome's apartment and ask for Jack, fall all over him and then walk out. It would have been a mistake to make her a Mrs. Roper clone, but the character may have worked better if she had some of Mrs. Roper's warmth and interacted more with Janet and Chrissy. Ironically, she was given her best material in her last episode. Janet's reaction was priceless when Lana was trying to point out about Jack's "affair" with one of his roommates, and she told Janet, "And I thought Chrissy was the dumb one!" LOL.
Last edited:
- Awards
- 11
As this thread would certainly encourage, yours truly has gotten a renewed interest in Three's Company here recently. Because of this, I decided to re-watch the first season of the show that I've had on DVD for some time, but that I haven't watched in a couple of years.
Episodic Overview
Three's Company came onto the airways on March 15, 1977. Its first episode, "A Man About the House", is perhaps one of the best pilot episodes I've seen for a TV series in a long time. (Keep in mind, however, it's been a while since I've started watching a new series, and this itself wasn't technically new, but it some ways it kind of reads that way in my mind.) As we know, the episode follows this plot: roommates Janet (Joyce DeWitt) and Chrissy (Suzanne Somers) awaken one morning after having a going away party for their fellow roommate Eleanor. Once they go into their bathroom, they find a man, by the name of Jack (John Ritter), asleep in their bathtub. To make a long story short, the two girls take a liking to Jack, and they decide to ask him to move in with them. The girls' landlords, however, Stanley (Norman Fell) and Helen Roper (Audra Lindley), aren't keen to the idea of two young women living with a man. Although the trio assures them the arrangement is strictly a platonic one, the landlords don't permit it until Janet sprinkles a fib that Jack is gay.
Thus starts one of the signature farcical comedies the television screen as ever known.
There are only five more episodes in this single disc set. Three's Company was a late-starting mid-season replacement (it's actually like an end-season replacement really), so there was only six episodes scheduled. In "And Mother Makes Four", the second episode, Jack is forced to hide the fact that he's living with Janet and Chrissy from Chrissy's mother, who turns out to be a preacher's wife. All is well, however, when it's learned at the end that Mr. Roper's told Chrissy's mother of Jack, and that nothing was indecent because Jack is said to be gay. (In this episode, Mrs. Roper learns of Jack's heterosexuality, but keeps it secret from her husband.) The next episode, "Roper's Niece", has Jack masquerading as a date for Roper's niece, an arrangement Roper only okays because he thinks Jack is gay, and therefore he won't make a pass at his attractive niece. (Do you see a recurring theme? A common tactic early on is Jack's faking homosexual tendencies.)
In "No Children, No Dogs" (Season 1, Episode 4), the trio of roommates have to head a cute puppy from their landlords given to them by Jack's womanizing car salesman buddy Larry (Richard Kline). Mr. Roper forbids them to keep the pup, but Chrissy devises a plan where the little dog is left on the Ropers' doorstep, and Mrs. Roper passes it off as an anniversary present from her husband. Jack's true masculinity, not a false one, is called into question in the next episode entitled "Jack the Giant Killer". A rude bar patron makes unwanted advances towards Janet and Chrissy, but Jack seemingly cowers from any confrontation. In the end, Janet again bails him out with a fake Vietnam war hero charade. In the season finale, "It's Only Money", the trio believes their apartment to be a victim of local robbery. Their rent money has disappeared, and they worry about how to explain their inability to pay for it to the Ropers. At he conclusion, Mr. Roper says that he took the money from their apartment while he was their fixing their doorbell.
Show Popularity & Overall Thoughts
After watching this abbreviated pilot season, I found myself particularly thrilled at the outcome. While the video quality wasn't necessarily the best (especially not on my 55" HD-TV), the shows themselves were very good. The writing here is more sedate than anything I've seen the show offer in the following seasons. The physical comedy isn't as broad, but that slapstick humor comes to full form in Season Two.
Three's Company was an immediate hit back in 1977, with its first episode finishing at #28 in the weekly ratings. Within a week or two, the show was placing in the Nielsen Top Ten, where it would stay until its final season started in 1983. The critical reviews, however, were nothing less of horrific. The series was critiqued for its plot, humor, acting, and not surprisingly, for being immoral and corrupting America's youth. Religious leaders and organizations took stances against the show, but ABC stood by their baby, feeding it to the top of the Nielsen's.
Overall, I can say that I really enjoyed this first season. I can understand how fans waited --- perhaps impatiently --- for the second season to come out a decade or so ago because this pilot year is show brief. The writing, from a fan's point of logic, is well done, as are the performances themselves.
Buy it. Watch it. I don't think you'll be disappointed.
Episodic Overview
Three's Company came onto the airways on March 15, 1977. Its first episode, "A Man About the House", is perhaps one of the best pilot episodes I've seen for a TV series in a long time. (Keep in mind, however, it's been a while since I've started watching a new series, and this itself wasn't technically new, but it some ways it kind of reads that way in my mind.) As we know, the episode follows this plot: roommates Janet (Joyce DeWitt) and Chrissy (Suzanne Somers) awaken one morning after having a going away party for their fellow roommate Eleanor. Once they go into their bathroom, they find a man, by the name of Jack (John Ritter), asleep in their bathtub. To make a long story short, the two girls take a liking to Jack, and they decide to ask him to move in with them. The girls' landlords, however, Stanley (Norman Fell) and Helen Roper (Audra Lindley), aren't keen to the idea of two young women living with a man. Although the trio assures them the arrangement is strictly a platonic one, the landlords don't permit it until Janet sprinkles a fib that Jack is gay.
Thus starts one of the signature farcical comedies the television screen as ever known.
There are only five more episodes in this single disc set. Three's Company was a late-starting mid-season replacement (it's actually like an end-season replacement really), so there was only six episodes scheduled. In "And Mother Makes Four", the second episode, Jack is forced to hide the fact that he's living with Janet and Chrissy from Chrissy's mother, who turns out to be a preacher's wife. All is well, however, when it's learned at the end that Mr. Roper's told Chrissy's mother of Jack, and that nothing was indecent because Jack is said to be gay. (In this episode, Mrs. Roper learns of Jack's heterosexuality, but keeps it secret from her husband.) The next episode, "Roper's Niece", has Jack masquerading as a date for Roper's niece, an arrangement Roper only okays because he thinks Jack is gay, and therefore he won't make a pass at his attractive niece. (Do you see a recurring theme? A common tactic early on is Jack's faking homosexual tendencies.)
In "No Children, No Dogs" (Season 1, Episode 4), the trio of roommates have to head a cute puppy from their landlords given to them by Jack's womanizing car salesman buddy Larry (Richard Kline). Mr. Roper forbids them to keep the pup, but Chrissy devises a plan where the little dog is left on the Ropers' doorstep, and Mrs. Roper passes it off as an anniversary present from her husband. Jack's true masculinity, not a false one, is called into question in the next episode entitled "Jack the Giant Killer". A rude bar patron makes unwanted advances towards Janet and Chrissy, but Jack seemingly cowers from any confrontation. In the end, Janet again bails him out with a fake Vietnam war hero charade. In the season finale, "It's Only Money", the trio believes their apartment to be a victim of local robbery. Their rent money has disappeared, and they worry about how to explain their inability to pay for it to the Ropers. At he conclusion, Mr. Roper says that he took the money from their apartment while he was their fixing their doorbell.
Show Popularity & Overall Thoughts
After watching this abbreviated pilot season, I found myself particularly thrilled at the outcome. While the video quality wasn't necessarily the best (especially not on my 55" HD-TV), the shows themselves were very good. The writing here is more sedate than anything I've seen the show offer in the following seasons. The physical comedy isn't as broad, but that slapstick humor comes to full form in Season Two.
Three's Company was an immediate hit back in 1977, with its first episode finishing at #28 in the weekly ratings. Within a week or two, the show was placing in the Nielsen Top Ten, where it would stay until its final season started in 1983. The critical reviews, however, were nothing less of horrific. The series was critiqued for its plot, humor, acting, and not surprisingly, for being immoral and corrupting America's youth. Religious leaders and organizations took stances against the show, but ABC stood by their baby, feeding it to the top of the Nielsen's.
Overall, I can say that I really enjoyed this first season. I can understand how fans waited --- perhaps impatiently --- for the second season to come out a decade or so ago because this pilot year is show brief. The writing, from a fan's point of logic, is well done, as are the performances themselves.
Buy it. Watch it. I don't think you'll be disappointed.
- Awards
- 11
- Awards
- 17
When I think of Threes Company the first thing I always think of is Chrissy Snow. She definitely stole the show and her antics were always must see. I had no problem with Cindy or Terri. They were both terrific as well but unfortunately no replacement could ever duplicate the original cast.
R.I.P. Suzanne and thank you for all the hysterical laughter!
R.I.P. Suzanne and thank you for all the hysterical laughter!
- Awards
- 21
Well, she tried to steal from the show.
John Ritter was the show.
John Ritter was the show.
Didn't she demand more pay, which led to John Ritter (and Joyce DeWitt) not speaking to her for years?
Priscilla Barnes had some issues with the producers (but liked Joyce DeWitt and John Ritter), and actually hated her experience on the show. (James Bond was around the corner for her of course).
Last edited:
- Awards
- 21
Really? Tell us more..!
- Awards
- 9
Aside from the backstage tension, the producers didn't seem to have any interest in her character. She seems like she was cast as the "obligatory blonde", but I don't recall her character being given much to do or much of a personality. By the time they got to Blonde #3, the producers didn't seem to bother.
- Awards
- 21
But Barnes was funnier.
Ref Three's A Crowd, in spite of the moderate ratings (especially against The A-Team) ABC actually wanted to renew it for a 2nd season, but wanted to commit to just 13 episodes given the ratings.
John Ritter was however not willing to return to Three's A Crowd unless ABC ordered a full season of 22 episodes. ABC, not willing to give into John's demands, canned Three's A Crowd and picked up the cancelled NBC series Diff'rent Strokes for one final season.
- Awards
- 17
Really? I liked Priscilla on the show. Actually found her very underrated but I never thought she was as funny as Suzanne at the show’s peak.
- Awards
- 5
John Ritter was just as self-interested as Suzanne ever was, but men tend to get away with it. Suzanne was painted as the villainess, but let's not forget Ritter didn't even tell Joyce DeWitt that he was planning to star in a spin-off of which she would have no part. In the end Joyce made her own bed by allying with people who didn't give a damn about her anyway. For all of Suzanne's vanity, at least she fought back.
- Awards
- 9
I agree. Ritter not only negotiated a deal that made him the best paid, it blocked his co-stars from ever being on par; plus he participated in having them all given the heave ho so he could have his own spin-off. I don't think Ritter deserves to be villainized for looking out for his own best interests, but it seems like he did Joyce dirtier than Suzanne ever did. Somers' antics may have caused some short term upheaval on the set, but ultimately she only shot herself in the foot.
- Awards
- 21
Yes, the spin-off idea was never going to work. And Dewitt was unfairly dumped.
- Awards
- 17
I will admit to actually liking Three’s a Crowd at the time. Why? I don’t know, but for some reason I did. Perhaps I was hopeful Ritter could make it work somehow but it was pretty obvious that it just wasn’t going to be the same.
- Awards
- 8
I agree that John Ritter was just as self-interested. I thought that Joyce Dewitt carried on her feud with Suzanne Somers far too long.
Maybe she was unhappy that Suzanne Somers eventually found success with Thighmaster and Step by Step
I agree. Again, I am not defending Suzanne Somers negotiating tactics, but she had a right to bargain for more.
I am glad that Suzanne Somers eventually found success in another sitcom, on in which she seemed to be an
updated Carol Brady
I think John Ritter was stuck between a rock and a hard place. He was offered the spinoff show, which the whole cast always knew was a possibility; the British original had two spinoffs, and they had already done an US version of George and Mildred when they spun off The Ropers. And Three’s Company was ending regardless of whether John did the spinoff; the ratings tanked in that final season and ABC was not renewing it. Ritter was an employee, not management, and he didn’t feel it was his place to tell his fellow cast members that Three’s Company was ending. Joyce felt that it was and she was very hurt by that. She also felt disrespected by the producers in general, because she didn’t think they valued her contributions to the show and thought Ritter was the whole thing.
Ritter was the glue that held the show together, but Three’s a Crowd proved Joyce right. Three’s Company was successful because of the ensemble. Three’s a Crowd rested solely on Ritter’s shoulders, and it failed.
A contractual clause guaranteeing that the top billed actor on a show is paid the most money is commonplace in Hollywood, by the way. As is a “favored nation” clause that guarantees that one actor won’t be paid more than another (Penny Marshall and Cindy Williams had that for Laverne and Shirley). Suzanne and Joyce had favored nation clauses so they’d be paid equally. Ritter was paid more because the show was developed with him in mind (he did earlier versions of the pilot without Dewitt and Somers), and he had a stronger TV resume than his costars. Right or wrong, that was and is still commonplace.
Suzanne Somers was right to go after more money - particularly profit participation. Three’s Company made a half billion dollars during its initial syndication cycles. And it was an independent production - not from a major studio like Warner Bros or Paramount - so the producers pocketed all of that. The cast deserved a piece of that pie. But Suzanne negotiated poorly. If the three leads had banded together, they would have gotten profit participation. But Suzanne went it alone, leaving her inexperienced husband to negotiate. She disrupted production, lied quite a bit (according to Joyce) and alienated pretty much the entire cast and crew. They were all sick of her at the end. Suzanne tells of a story where she ran into the show’s wardrobe master on the street one day years after the show ended. And he crossed the street to avoid talking to her.
Ritter was the glue that held the show together, but Three’s a Crowd proved Joyce right. Three’s Company was successful because of the ensemble. Three’s a Crowd rested solely on Ritter’s shoulders, and it failed.
A contractual clause guaranteeing that the top billed actor on a show is paid the most money is commonplace in Hollywood, by the way. As is a “favored nation” clause that guarantees that one actor won’t be paid more than another (Penny Marshall and Cindy Williams had that for Laverne and Shirley). Suzanne and Joyce had favored nation clauses so they’d be paid equally. Ritter was paid more because the show was developed with him in mind (he did earlier versions of the pilot without Dewitt and Somers), and he had a stronger TV resume than his costars. Right or wrong, that was and is still commonplace.
Suzanne Somers was right to go after more money - particularly profit participation. Three’s Company made a half billion dollars during its initial syndication cycles. And it was an independent production - not from a major studio like Warner Bros or Paramount - so the producers pocketed all of that. The cast deserved a piece of that pie. But Suzanne negotiated poorly. If the three leads had banded together, they would have gotten profit participation. But Suzanne went it alone, leaving her inexperienced husband to negotiate. She disrupted production, lied quite a bit (according to Joyce) and alienated pretty much the entire cast and crew. They were all sick of her at the end. Suzanne tells of a story where she ran into the show’s wardrobe master on the street one day years after the show ended. And he crossed the street to avoid talking to her.