I really didn't. Linda didn't have any chemistry with Jack and Chrissy. You can't just throw a different actress in and expect her to have chemistry with the other two. That was a weird episode.



Was it written inside the Three's Company Book why Janet was absent in this episode?

Originally posted by TVShow Analyzer
I really didn't. Linda didn't have any chemistry with Jack and Chrissy. You can't just throw a different actress in and expect her to have chemistry with the other two. That was a weird episode.

I thought all in all that the episode was rather decent. Sure, we missed Janet, but I don't think the episode suffered in the least. It was funny, especially Mr. Roper with his eavesdropping, and we had seen enough of Linda at that point to have her presence in the episode justified. It didn't come across as odd to me at all. Now, Chrissy's chronic absences in Season 5, with the eventual non-explanation of her never coming back to the apartment, was odd to say the least.

Originally posted by TVShow Analyzer
Was it written inside the Three's Company Book why Janet was absent in this episode?

It sure was. I'm not sure if I remember correctly, but there was a conflict with Joyce DeWitt in some way. I think she was given a raise of some sort & then at the last minute, it was taken away from her, or it was her salary that was being reduced at the last minute. In any case, this really upset her (and who can blame her?) so she called in sick at work and went down to the heads of ABC and told them that, under those current conditions, she would not be willing to work for Three's Company.

She said something along the lines that her talent was something she had to nurture and make sure was respected and that she was willing to do whatever was necessary to make a smooth transition for the show to explain her absence but that if the situation wasn't rectified, she was done with the show. The PTB then made good on what was done and reinstated her monies. Not only that, from that point on she was also guaranteed parity salary with Suzanne Somers.

This was all a verbal agreement while Three's Company was beginning its workweek on the episode "Stanley's Hotline", and Joyce's agent suggested to her that the 'handshake agreement' was not good enough and that she should wait until she got it in writing before returning to work. She did and things were worked out by mid-week. She contacted the show and told them she was willing to come to work and that she'd know her lines, but the producers were too nervous with Joyce not having enough practice time so they opted to have the Linda character step in for that episode.

Hope that explains things...

Ed

Originally posted by Edster2973
I thought all in all that the episode was rather decent. Sure, we missed Janet, but I don't think the episode suffered in the least. It was funny, especially Mr. Roper with his eavesdropping, and we had seen enough of Linda at that point to have her presence in the episode justified. It didn't come across as odd to me at all. Now, Chrissy's chronic absences in Season 5, with the eventual non-explanation of her never coming back to the apartment, was odd to say the least.



It sure was. I'm not sure if I remember correctly, but there was a conflict with Joyce DeWitt in some way. I think she was given a raise of some sort & then at the last minute, it was taken away from her, or it was her salary that was being reduced at the last minute. In any case, this really upset her (and who can blame her?) so she called in sick at work and went down to the heads of ABC and told them that, under those current conditions, she would not be willing to work for Three's Company.

She said something along the lines that her talent was something she had to nurture and make sure was respected and that she was willing to do whatever was necessary to make a smooth transition for the show to explain her absence but that if the situation wasn't rectified, she was done with the show. The PTB then made good on what was done and reinstated her monies. Not only that, from that point on she was also guaranteed parity salary with Suzanne Somers.

This was all a verbal agreement while Three's Company was beginning its workweek on the episode "Stanley's Hotline", and Joyce's agent suggested to her that the 'handshake agreement' was not good enough and that she should wait until she got it in writing before returning to work. She did and things were worked out by mid-week. She contacted the show and told them she was willing to come to work and that she'd know her lines, but the producers were too nervous with Joyce not having enough practice time so they opted to have the Linda character step in for that episode.

Hope that explains things...

Ed



thanks

Originally posted by Edster2973
I thought all in all that the episode was rather decent. Sure, we missed Janet, but I don't think the episode suffered in the least. It was funny, especially Mr. Roper with his eavesdropping, and we had seen enough of Linda at that point to have her presence in the episode justified. It didn't come across as odd to me at all. Now, Chrissy's chronic absences in Season 5, with the eventual non-explanation of her never coming back to the apartment, was odd to say the least.



It sure was. I'm not sure if I remember correctly, but there was a conflict with Joyce DeWitt in some way. I think she was given a raise of some sort & then at the last minute, it was taken away from her, or it was her salary that was being reduced at the last minute. In any case, this really upset her (and who can blame her?) so she called in sick at work and went down to the heads of ABC and told them that, under those current conditions, she would not be willing to work for Three's Company.

She said something along the lines that her talent was something she had to nurture and make sure was respected and that she was willing to do whatever was necessary to make a smooth transition for the show to explain her absence but that if the situation wasn't rectified, she was done with the show. The PTB then made good on what was done and reinstated her monies. Not only that, from that point on she was also guaranteed parity salary with Suzanne Somers.

This was all a verbal agreement while Three's Company was beginning its workweek on the episode "Stanley's Hotline", and Joyce's agent suggested to her that the 'handshake agreement' was not good enough and that she should wait until she got it in writing before returning to work. She did and things were worked out by mid-week. She contacted the show and told them she was willing to come to work and that she'd know her lines, but the producers were too nervous with Joyce not having enough practice time so they opted to have the Linda character step in for that episode.

Hope that explains things...

Ed


Hey thanks for getting that cleared. Always wandered why Joyce was absent in that eppy.

I kinda liked the episode on the whole & like Edster2973 said Mr. Roper was great in this one. However i really missed Janet. Its not the same without her. and like TVShow Analyser pointed out, Linda lacked the chemistry that Janet so beautifully shares with Jack & Chrissy.

here is an interesting sidebar. does anyone find it rather odd that how offen mr roper and furley ripped jack about being gay, when linda substituted for any of the girls no gay talk existed...even though everyone knew she was his girlfriend, on other shows were roper/furley saw him with a woman they would always smack- you have nothing to worry with jack, or nothing ins gonna happen with her and jack.....now i might be over analizing things, but does anyone have the same opinion?

I didn't like that Janet wasn't in the episode but enjoyed the storyline

Originally posted by BuffaloBill
here is an interesting sidebar. does anyone find it rather odd that how offen mr roper and furley ripped jack about being gay, when linda substituted for any of the girls no gay talk existed...even though everyone knew she was his girlfriend, on other shows were roper/furley saw him with a woman they would always smack- you have nothing to worry with jack, or nothing ins gonna happen with her and jack.....now i might be over analizing things, but does anyone have the same opinion?


I think Mrs. Roper Knew Linda was Jack's girlfriend but not Mr. Roper

right...that's the fact 'm referring to. roper and furley were the only ones all the time oblivious to the fact linda his girlfriend was staying there.

Originally posted by BuffaloBill
right...that's the fact 'm referring to. roper and furley were the only ones all the time oblivious to the fact linda his girlfriend was staying there.


The Linda character was no longer Jack's girlfriend during the Furley Era.

Stanley's Hotline is one of my favorite episodes from the Roper Years. Dewitts absence from that episode really didn't bother me because Mr. Roper stole the show with the misunderstanding about the wart.

not true, in one of the episode that linda was subbing on when chrissy left the show...they made a promise there would be no hanky-panky while she was staying there. he as doing it out of respect for janet.

Originally posted by BuffaloBill
not true, in one of the episode that linda was subbing on when chrissy left the show...they made a promise there would be no hanky-panky while she was staying there. he as doing it out of respect for janet.


I don't ever recall Linda being Jack's girl while Furley was on the show. The only time that woman who played Jack's girl was on the show when Furley was there was as a loan officer at a Bank when Jack was trying to get a loan for his restarunt.

all you have to do is watch those shows....the proof is right there

I dont think Mr. Roper knew Linda was Jacks girlfriend , they probably told Roper that Linda was a close friend of Chrissy or Jack .

Originally posted by BuffaloBill
all you have to do is watch those shows....the proof is right there


Here is the proof.

She appeared on TC 5 times. Three times with Roper and 2 times with Furley.

1978-Will the Real Jack Tripper-(Linda)
1978-Double Date-(Linda)
1978-Stanely's Hotline-(Linda)


1981-Honest Jack Trepper-Lisa Page
1982-Jack Gets His Own Restatunt-Ms. Prescott

Yeah but she wasn't the Linda character during the furley era...

Originally posted by Christmas Snow
Yeah but she wasn't the Linda character during the furley era...

right. and besides in jack gets his she plays a loan officer at the bank. she was never dating him in that ep, so furley never say him. and in honest jack tripper he lied and said that she was for furley.

Originally posted by jjlover

I kinda liked the episode on the whole & like Edster2973 said Mr. Roper was great in this one. However i really missed Janet. Its not the same without her. and like TVShow Analyser pointed out, Linda lacked the chemistry that Janet so beautifully shares with Jack & Chrissy.

I disagree about the chemistry. There was chemistry with Linda, it just wasn't the same chemistry, that's all. But the alternative would've been worse, which would be no Joyce or Linda. That would've stunk!

Plus, I view the episode as being a bit realistic. Let's face it; in real life friends do depart for a visit to see their folks. They're not always constantly around. Janet being away for that episode added a bit of realism in that respect. It showed she had a life elsewhere and was living it.

As a change of pace, the episode worked really well, but that doesn't mean I think it should have been a permanent change or that it could've worked as such. No way José!

Ed

Originally posted by BuffaloBill
here is an interesting sidebar. does anyone find it rather odd that how offen mr roper and furley ripped jack about being gay, when linda substituted for any of the girls no gay talk existed...even though everyone knew she was his girlfriend, on other shows were roper/furley saw him with a woman they would always smack- you have nothing to worry with jack, or nothing ins gonna happen with her and jack.....now i might be over analizing things, but does anyone have the same opinion?

Yeah, I was sort of wondering about that too. Actually, I've never seen this ep and I won't get the show in syndication after I move out of the dorm, so I probably won't see it for a while.

How did they explain Linda to Mr. Roper? Did he think that she was just a friend of his or something like that?

I also noticed that in "Chrissy's Cousin," Mr. Furley saw Jack with his girlfriend. Why would he be okay with that?

Oh another thing. If the reason Joyce missed this ep was because of some kind of salary dispute, why would she get upset with Suzanne Somers for doing the same thing years later? Also, Joyce only missed one ep. Suzanne left the show for good. I'm really confused now. :confused: Why was the salary dispute with Joyce settled but not the one with Suzanne? :confused:

Originally posted by Edster2973
I disagree about the chemistry. There was chemistry with Linda, it just wasn't the same chemistry, that's all. But the alternative would've been worse, which would be no Joyce or Linda. That would've stunk!

Plus, I view the episode as being a bit realistic. Let's face it; in real life friends do depart for a visit to see their folks. They're not always constantly around. Janet being away for that episode added a bit of realism in that respect. It showed she had a life elsewhere and was living it.

As a change of pace, the episode worked really well, but that doesn't mean I think it should have been a permanent change or that it could've worked as such. No way José!

Ed


Thats exactly what i said. I did mention that i liked the episode. Like you said its a nice change however i really did miss Janet.

Originally posted by Daffyfan2004
Yeah, I was sort of wondering about that too. Actually, I've never seen this ep and I won't get the show in syndication after I move out of the dorm, so I probably won't see it for a while.

How did they explain Linda to Mr. Roper? Did he think that she was just a friend of his or something like that?

I also noticed that in "Chrissy's Cousin," Mr. Furley saw Jack with his girlfriend. Why would he be okay with that?

Maybe he & Mr. Roper thought that any girl with Jack was just a friend. Gay men are known to have their 'hags'. Look at Will & Grace. I mean, if it was upsetting to see Jack with a girl he didn't live with, then gay or not, he wouldn't be allowed to live with Janet & Chrissy/Cindy/Teri.

Originally posted by Daffyfan2004
Oh another thing. If the reason Joyce missed this ep was because of some kind of salary dispute, why would she get upset with Suzanne Somers for doing the same thing years later? Also, Joyce only missed one ep. Suzanne left the show for good. I'm really confused now. :confused: Why was the salary dispute with Joyce settled but not the one with Suzanne? :confused:

This is so not the same thing. Firstly, Joyce was fighting for money that she was originally given. The bosses agreed to pay her whatever she was fighting for. It was that they tried to screw her out of it later on that got her hopping mad (I don't blame her for one). She wasn't fighting for a raise. She was fighting for the agreed upon amount of monies to be re-instated.

With Suzanne, she was asking for a raise, plain and simple, and a hefty one at that. I'm not about to debate whether others feel she was justified in that or not (me personally, I think she should've gotten what she wanted; the bosses could well afford that and more, let alone upping John & Joyce's salary too).

The thing that she did though, and she agrees now that she was wrong to do this, is not show up for work (when she said that she would) as a way of forcing her bosses' hands. She realizes it upset the cast and forced them to learn 2 versions of each episode (one with her, and one without her). No matter what her arguement was, she knew she was being disruptive. This rubbed the cast the wrong way. She feels that she should've just informed the bosses that she wasn't going to work until something could be worked out. This would've allowed the show to plan around her absences instead of scurrying around and forcing the cast & crew to work overtime.

Two different scenarios. Joyce was fighting for what she originally was promised and Suzanne, feeling that she was more valuable than what her salary compensated for, was trying to up her salary. I happen to agree with both of them. I'm not sure if it's true or not, but Suzanne claims that she was fighting for more $$ not only for herself but for her 2 other co-stars. She said she realized that her getting a raise would ripple effect into John & Joyce getting more money. Perhaps she should've clued them in on this...

What's interesting is that Joyce, while trying to explain her side in the Suzanne fiasco, actually lends support (unintentionally) to Suzanne's arguement about the producers being sexist, greedy and manipulative, as does Priscilla Barnes. Joyce & Priscilla attest that the women were treated like children, were not listened to and treated like dirt. They actually corroborate Suzanne's side of the story without even meaning to. Funny, eh? Seems Suzanne's been more honest than she's been given credit for.

Ed

ok, you guys are correct about linda not being in the furley era. ann shedeen was his girlfriend again in the furley era, but under the name lisa.... so thats were that confusion took place, which conesides around the same time chrissy left. after further review the episode were jack and linda say they are not going to fool around is stanley's hotline. ann played three different women on the show(linda x 3, lisa, and louise-all l's) so i guess i could see why i screwed up..oooops

Originally posted by Edster2973
Maybe he & Mr. Roper thought that any girl with Jack was just a friend. Gay men are known to have their 'hags'. Look at Will & Grace. I mean, if it was upsetting to see Jack with a girl he didn't live with, then gay or not, he wouldn't be allowed to live with Janet & Chrissy/Cindy/Teri.



This is so not the same thing. Firstly, Joyce was fighting for money that she was originally given. The bosses agreed to pay her whatever she was fighting for. It was that they tried to screw her out of it later on that got her hopping mad (I don't blame her for one). She wasn't fighting for a raise. She was fighting for the agreed upon amount of monies to be re-instated.

With Suzanne, she was asking for a raise, plain and simple, and a hefty one at that. I'm not about to debate whether others feel she was justified in that or not (me personally, I think she should've gotten what she wanted; the bosses could well afford that and more, let alone upping John & Joyce's salary too).

The thing that she did though, and she agrees now that she was wrong to do this, is not show up for work (when she said that she would) as a way of forcing her bosses' hands. She realizes it upset the cast and forced them to learn 2 versions of each episode (one with her, and one without her). No matter what her arguement was, she knew she was being disruptive. This rubbed the cast the wrong way. She feels that she should've just informed the bosses that she wasn't going to work until something could be worked out. This would've allowed the show to plan around her absences instead of scurrying around and forcing the cast & crew to work overtime.

Two different scenarios. Joyce was fighting for what she originally was promised and Suzanne, feeling that she was more valuable than what her salary compensated for, was trying to up her salary. I happen to agree with both of them. I'm not sure if it's true or not, but Suzanne claims that she was fighting for more $$ not only for herself but for her 2 other co-stars. She said she realized that her getting a raise would ripple effect into John & Joyce getting more money. Perhaps she should've clued them in on this...

What's interesting is that Joyce, while trying to explain her side in the Suzanne fiasco, actually lends support (unintentionally) to Suzanne's arguement about the producers being sexist, greedy and manipulative, as does Priscilla Barnes. Joyce & Priscilla attest that the women were treated like children, were not listened to and treated like dirt. They actually corroborate Suzanne's side of the story without even meaning to. Funny, eh? Seems Suzanne's been more honest than she's been given credit for.

Ed

O.K. I understand now. Thanks for clearing that up.