I'm finishing up the Three's Company Book and read the part when Dewitt was mad because she wasn't included in the spinoff. She tells the producers she could have played the role of Jack's girlfriend which sounded very dumb because Jack and Janet wasn't a couple-LOL I understand no one wants to stop working but like the producer said it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to write the Janet Wood character into the show. She should just accepted she was no longer needed and looked else where for other acting opportunities. Bottom line

Well I think that she was allso ticked off because she was not told about the spinoff and she had to find out about it when she walked in on the vicky interviews, and maby she wasnt right for the part but as I recall 3s a crowd lasted only 1 season the actress they picked for the part couldnt act for beans, and maby the show would have lasted longer if jack and janet fell in love and joyce was in the spinoff.

Well I think that she was allso ticked off because she was not told about the spinoff and she had to find out about it when she walked in on the vicky interviews, and maby she wasnt right for the part but as I recall 3s a crowd lasted only 1 season the actress they picked for the part couldnt act for beans, and maby the show would have lasted longer if jack and janet fell in love and joyce was in the spinoff.



She was not told about the spinoff because she wasn't going to be on the spinoff. They also didn't tell Don Knotts, and Priscilla Barnes about the spinoff because well you know the rest-lol

She was not told about the spinoff because she wasn't going to be on the spinoff. They also didn't tell Don Knotts, and Priscilla Barnes about the spinoff because well you know the rest-lol
The whole cast should've been included in on it. The producers ****ed up pretty badly.

The whole cast should've been included in on it. The producers ****ed up pretty badly.


HUH??????-LOL If the entire cast was included on it the show would have been called-"THE NINTH SEASON OF THREE"S COMPANY"-LMAO_LOL!!!!!

I'm finishing up the Three's Company Book and read the part when Dewitt was mad because she wasn't included in the spinoff. She tells the producers she could have played the role of Jack's girlfriend which sounded very dumb because Jack and Janet wasn't a couple-LOL I understand no one wants to stop working but like the producer said it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to write the Janet Wood character into the show. She should just accepted she was no longer needed and looked else where for other acting opportunities. Bottom line

Joyce had every right to be upset! How would you feel if your boss came up to you after giving him 10 years of your life and told you that you were going to lose your job? I think you'd be just as upset as she was!! And Jack and Janet were a WONDERFUL couple! The stupid writers just screwed it up. Had Joyce been on "Three's A Crowd" it would have lasted longer than a year!

Joyce had every right to be upset! How would you feel if your boss came up to you after giving him 10 years of your life and told you that you were going to lose your job? I think you'd be just as upset as she was!! And Jack and Janet were a WONDERFUL couple! The stupid writers just screwed it up. Had Joyce been on "Three's A Crowd" it would have lasted longer than a year!



Joyce was told like all the other cast members that the 8th season was going to be the last. But They didn't have to tell her about the spinoff because she wasn't going to be apart of the show. So just like they didn;t tell her about the spinoff, they also didn;t tell Priscilla Barnes, or Don Knotts

HUH??????-LOL If the entire cast was included on it the show would have been called-"THE NINTH SEASON OF THREE"S COMPANY"-LMAO_LOL!!!!!
I mean they should have been informed about it.

I mean they should have been informed about it.


But why would they need to know about the spinoff if it had nothing to do with them? The only ones that should have known about it was Richard Kline and John Ritter.

ITA the producers did NOT treat them well at all, Priscilla even said that towards the end she didn't even noticed that everyone was being treated badly because that's the way she was treated all along.

But why would they need to know about the spinoff if it had nothing to do with them? The only ones that should have known about it was Richard Kline and John Ritter.

It had everything to do with them, they were the ones IN tc, they were the ones who would be out of work.

It had everything to do with them, they were the ones IN tc, they were the ones who would be out of work.


Well when your job is phased out, you have to start looking for another one. That's life and Joyce was old enough to know that.

She was a big part of the show at this point and if you ask me i think her and john were equal, they both stayed on the show for an equal amount of time, and even their characters were an equal contribution to the importance of the show, one wasn't better than the other, so i think it was wrong for them to make a spin off with only one of them, that's like taking all the credit from the show and giving it to one person and totally ignoring the other. So the bottom line is that first she got cut out then she's not even told about it. She was the other half, you can't just doing soemthing with one half and totally ignore the other and just hope they'll go away. It doesn't working like that.

She was a big part of the show at this point and if you ask me i think her and john were equal, they both stayed on the show for an equal amount of time, and even their characters were an equal contribution to the importance of the show, one wasn't better than the other, so i think it was wrong for them to make a spin off with only one of them, that's like taking all the credit from the show and giving it to one person and totally igoring the other. So the bottom line is that first she got cut out then she's not even told about it. She was the other half, you can't just doing soemthing with one half and totally igore the other and just hope they'll go away. It doesn't working like that.



Now you know that Joyce and John were not equal. John was the star And Joyce was the Supporting character. I understand that she was mad that her employment was coming to an end but the storyline of TAC just didn't involve her character. It was about Jack having a live in girlfriend and there was no way Janet could have moved in with Jack because they were not romantically involved. The only Three's Company character that was able to fit on TAC was Larry. Not Janet, Terri, or Mr. Furley. They could only make guest spots that's all because it was no longer Three's Company

I don’t' care what anyone says I still believe that they were equal, maybe not at the beginning but at the end they knew it and the audience knew it. Actually i think that the audience would've believed Jack and Janet being "romantically involved", more than Jack meeting one girl and falling in love with her AND wanting to marry within what 2 days.

I don’t' care what anyone says I still believe that they were equal, maybe not at the beginning but at the end they knew it and the audience knew it. Actually i think that the audience would've believed Jack and Janet being "romantically involved", more than Jack meeting one girl and falling in love with her AND wanting to marry within what 2 days.


But the Network execs told the Producers to end Three's Company so that was the problem. Do you understand that having a show with just janet and Jack would have still been Three's Company? So the Producers had to sell the spinoff idea to the Network execs and I honestly don;t think they would have bought the idea of Janet Wood being on the show. The Exec would have said-"Hey wait a sec, this is still three's company get the hell out of my office"-LOL

I Think your missing the point, it was very un profesional the way they kept it from joyce and the others, it was as if they were trying to hide something and they treated it as if they were ashamed of hiding it from the others, The thing I totally disagree with is the sneaky way they did it.

Now you know that Joyce and John were not equal. John was the star And Joyce was the Supporting character. I understand that she was mad that her employment was coming to an end but the storyline of TAC just didn't involve her character. It was about Jack having a live in girlfriend and there was no way Janet could have moved in with Jack because they were not romantically involved. The only Three's Company character that was able to fit on TAC was Larry. Not Janet, Terri, or Mr. Furley. They could only make guest spots that's all because it was no longer Three's Company

Maybe John and Joyce weren't equal but she was a major part of the production! As we all can see b/c the new show flopped and I am GLAD it didn't work w/out the rest of the cast!!! They all even John thought he could pull it off by himself well NEWS FLASH! HE FAILED TOO!!! They needed all the cast or at least the 3 major characters! (Jack,Janet and Terri) because apperantly people didn't just tuned in to watch John Ritter since his OWN show WAS UNSUCCESSFUL!!!

Maybe John and Joyce weren't equal but she was a major part of the production! As we all can see b/c the new show flopped and I am GLAD it didn't work w/out the rest of the cast!!! They all even John thought he could pull it off by himself well NEWS FLASH! HE FAILED TOO!!! They needed all the cast or at least the 3 major characters! (Jack,Janet and Terri) because apperantly people didn't just tuned in to watch John Ritter since his OWN show WAS UNSUCCESSFUL!!!


TAC needed 3 of the Major characters?????????? Well if that was the case why was the ratings falling for Three's Company in season 8?

TAC needed 3 of the Major characters?????????? Well if that was the case why was the ratings falling for Three's Company in season 8?

Well if the ratings were so bad in the last season...why in the world did they think a new spin off would work?!

Well if the ratings were so bad in the last season...why in the world did they think a new spin off would work?!
It TAC was on the air today it would be considered a hit because its ratings were better then most of todays sitcoms including 8 Simple Rules. :lol:

I Think your missing the point, it was very un profesional the way they kept it from joyce and the others, it was as if they were trying to hide something and they treated it as if they were ashamed of hiding it from the others, The thing I totally disagree with is the sneaky way they did it.
I completely agree with you.

Well if the ratings were so bad in the last season...why in the world did they think a new spin off would work?!

Good Point-lol Maybe a spinoff with Larry would have worked better IMO.

Maybe John and Joyce weren't equal but she was a major part of the production! As we all can see b/c the new show flopped and I am GLAD it didn't work w/out the rest of the cast!!! They all even John thought he could pull it off by himself well NEWS FLASH! HE FAILED TOO!!! They needed all the cast or at least the 3 major characters! (Jack,Janet and Terri) because apperantly people didn't just tuned in to watch John Ritter since his OWN show WAS UNSUCCESSFUL!!!

It wasn't because of John that the show failed, without him, TAC wouldn't have made it 1 episode. The only reason it lasted 1 year was because of the True Blue John Ritter fans who were watching it. Mary Cadorette & Robert Mandan were probably the WORST television actors ever! They are the reason the show failed, not John. Every other sitcom he's been a part of has been successful in lasting at least 1 year. So, saying that John Ritter failed is like saying that the sky is green! :rolleyes: John Ritter is one of the BEST Comedic actors ever!

It wasn't because of John that the show failed, without him, TAC wouldn't have made it 1 episode. The only reason it lasted 1 year was because of the True Blue John Ritter fans who were watching it. Mary Cadorette & Robert Mandan were probably the WORST television actors ever! They are the reason the show failed, not John. Every other sitcom he's been a part of has been successful in lasting at least 1 year. So, saying that John Ritter failed is like saying that the sky is green! :rolleyes: John Ritter is one of the BEST Comedic actors ever!

I didn't say the reason the show failed was b/c of JR! I said it failed b/c the producers and John thought they could have a show w/out the full cast the producers should have just ened TC and not do a spin off because it did fail! The show was not as successfull as they all thought it was goign to be!! You are used to all these people they just thought they could just change things and expect the audience to take like it! They already had gone through that w/SS! the producers had already experince that a change in cast was not a smart move! I mean I preferr PB but everyone has heard that w/out SS the show wasn't the same...now imagine just having one orginal actor from a show America loved...it didn't work! SO I am not saying it failed b/c of him but b/c of him being the only character! And to many he is probably the best comedy actor ever I personally don't like physical comedy! I just love him being silly, cute, adorable JT better then to his physical comedy so I am not arguing w/you on his talent...I just was saying it wasn't enough to keep the audience going! And about Icky and her dad!...totally agree they were soooooooooooo boring!

It wasn't because of John that the show failed, without him, TAC wouldn't have made it 1 episode. The only reason it lasted 1 year was because of the True Blue John Ritter fans who were watching it. Mary Cadorette & Robert Mandan were probably the WORST television actors ever! They are the reason the show failed, not John. Every other sitcom he's been a part of has been successful in lasting at least 1 year. So, saying that John Ritter failed is like saying that the sky is green! :rolleyes: John Ritter is one of the BEST Comedic actors ever!


Maybe ABC should have changed the timeslot

It failed because it was opposite The A-Team. The same show that killed Happy Days and Laverne And Shirley.

It wasn't because of John that the show failed, without him, TAC wouldn't have made it 1 episode. The only reason it lasted 1 year was because of the True Blue John Ritter fans who were watching it. Mary Cadorette & Robert Mandan were probably the WORST television actors ever! They are the reason the show failed, not John. Every other sitcom he's been a part of has been successful in lasting at least 1 year. So, saying that John Ritter failed is like saying that the sky is green! :rolleyes: John Ritter is one of the BEST Comedic actors ever!
My thoughts exactly :clap

Mary was an awful actress but Robert has always been good. He was great in Soap and Private Benjamin and next to John he was the best thing about TAC.

Mary never showed hardly any emotion when she talked

Mary never showed hardly any emotion when she talked


She showed some emotions in certain eps of Three's a Crowd

Oh.. ok well i never saw TAC so i was just referring to tc :)

She showed some emotions in certain eps of Three's a Crowd
Yeah she did in some episodes.

Oh.. ok well i never saw TAC so i was just referring to tc :)


Yeah Vicky was kind of DULL in the last eps of TC

She showed some emotions in certain eps of Three's a Crowd

But she needed to capture the audience during TC for them to watch her in TAC! She was bording! NO chemistry whatsoever w/Jack!

But she needed to capture the audience during TC for them to watch her in TAC! She was bording! NO chemistry whatsoever w/Jack!


Yeah I agree, Vicky's Dad had more chemistry with Jack than Vicky. He even had good Chemistry with Larry. He was a damm good actor

I don’t' care what anyone says I still believe that they were equal, maybe not at the beginning but at the end they knew it and the audience knew it. Actually i think that the audience would've believed Jack and Janet being "romantically involved", more than Jack meeting one girl and falling in love with her AND wanting to marry within what 2 days.
:clap:

:clap:

Thanks :wave:

I didn't say the reason the show failed was b/c of JR! I said it failed b/c the producers and John thought they could have a show w/out the full cast the producers should have just ened TC and not do a spin off because it did fail! The show was not as successfull as they all thought it was goign to be!! You are used to all these people they just thought they could just change things and expect the audience to take like it! They already had gone through that w/SS! the producers had already experince that a change in cast was not a smart move! I mean I preferr PB but everyone has heard that w/out SS the show wasn't the same...now imagine just having one orginal actor from a show America loved...it didn't work! SO I am not saying it failed b/c of him but b/c of him being the only character! And to many he is probably the best comedy actor ever I personally don't like physical comedy! I just love him being silly, cute, adorable JT better then to his physical comedy so I am not arguing w/you on his talent...I just was saying it wasn't enough to keep the audience going! And about Icky and her dad!...totally agree they were soooooooooooo boring!

Ohh! Sorry! I misunderstood you! LOL! My bad! ;)

Ohh! Sorry! I misunderstood you! LOL! My bad! ;)


It's ok! :D

I think TAC would've been successful if Jack & Janet were a couple with Jack's mom butting in

First of all, if I can come in with my own 2 ¢ at this late date, Joyce DeWitt's argument made perfect sense. Whether or not one thinks she should or could have been included in the spin-off, the fact remains she was treated BADLY.

Her contention is that she was lied to, plain and simple. This is justified because she wasn't intended for Three's a Crowd? What kind of ethics do you have Solomon?

She approached her producers directly and asked them straight out if they were considering revamping the show or going in another direction. This was prior to ABC's decision to cancel Three's Company. She noticed that promo ads for the show, which used to include John Ritter, Joyce DeWitt and the other roommates (Suzanne Somers, Jenilee Harrison, and Priscilla Barnes) now only featured John Ritter and the guest-star for whatever episode that was being spotlighted. This got her curious and she asked them what was up about this.
They told her there was nothing going on and she trusted them. During the taping of the last episodes of the show (the whole crew knew at this point that they were being cancelled), the actors were put on hiatus and told that they were fine tuning the last episode of the show as the final hurrah. At this point, no one knew about the spin-off except for John Ritter.

The actors come back from their hiatus, all geared to give it their all for the last show, and they learn that instead of fine tuning the last show, the crew for the spin-off have been working at the same studio instead. Joyce and the rest of the actors all learned the truth, that they were deceived, and Joyce then learned that John Ritter had been part of that deception.

Some argue that the producers put John up to that deception, which is true. They really put him in an awkward position of having to choose between his friends or his job. He chose his job ultimately. Whether one agrees with that decision is irrelevant. It's what he chose to do and it hurt the others badly, especially Joyce. Just because he is dead now doesn't change the fact that he did indeed choose his job over his friends. But I do think it was cruel for the producers to do that to him, but then they weren't the kindest of folks now were they. It seems that Suzanne Somers was telling the truth all along about how abusive they were.

I think it's unfair to blame Mary Cadorette, or to say that she sucked or anything. We don't have to prove our loyalty to Joyce or Three's Company by knocking Mary or Three's a Crowd.

For what Mary was asked to do, I think she did a great job. Is it how I wanted things to be? Nope, but she didn't write the episodes either. And both she & Robert Mandan have commented how painful it was to be there while they were shooting the ending of Three's Company, but what were they to do? Quit on Joyce's behalf? Would Joyce have done that if the situation were reversed? Joyce didn't blame the spin-off actors and neither should we.

I don't know how Three's a Crowd would've fared with Joyce in the lead, and she has never said that she should've been Jack's love interest. She just thinks that some part of John's relationships with his former show needed to be in the new show, and that I agree with entirely. Janet Wood is the most logical person since she & Jack were there from the beginning, but surely visits from Janet could have occurred, or from Larry, Mr. Furley or even the Ropers. But no, those actors didn't a choice; the producers wrote them off with no intention of bringing them back even for a guest spot. They dropped them because in their minds, John Ritter was Three's Company.

I know some of you think John Ritter was the saint of all comedy, especially now that he's gone, but the producers thinking was way off and inaccurate. John wasn't the show, and quite frankly, I don't think John ever considered himself to be the show. He may have had confidence, but he wasn't stupid. That's like saying I Love Lucy could've existed without Ricky, Ethel or Fred. Lucy was the main, but she was only as strong as her supports. Without them, she would've been nothing. The same with Joey minus his Friends. It just isn't the same without the whole ensemble. Take away one character, even if it isn't the lead, and it falls apart.

Janet could have been part of the spin-off, even if she wasn't the girlfriend, but the producers clearly didn't value her or anyone else, much like they didn't value the Ropers or Chrissy or Cindy. All of them were written off callously. Even Suzanne Somers was willing to come back to the show at one point, and this was without her raise. Guess who said no to that? It was all about power and control folks. It's kind of abusive when you think about it.

Before I go: ever wonder how the producers were able to twist John Ritter's arm in this spin-off debacle? They told him they were going to try to do spin-offs for both of the girls (meaning Joyce & Priscilla). Clearly this was said because he had asked the producers "What about Joyce & Priscilla?". Pretty upstanding guy, no? But do you honestly think the producers ever had any intentions of making good on their promise to John? They had been lying all along by then, so why not to John? Seems they didn't value him much at all either, first by making him choose between his friends and then by lying to him. Looks like Joyce wasn't the only one to be deceived; everyone was.

Ahhh, the legacy of Three's Company. It's a credit to the actors that they were still able to make us laugh inspite of having to deal with so much bulljunk. That alone is a feat in and of itself...

Ed

Hey,

You brought up some very valid points, Ed. As much as I LOVE John Ritter, I also don't think that the show would've been as successful had Joyce, Suzanne, Larry, Priscilla, Furley, the Ropers, or even Cindy hadn't been there. A show works because of great chemistry and great characters- and usually just ONE can't make it work.

I wasn't aware of John accepting the job over his friends, but I suppose he did it for reasons that were personal to HIM. I'm not sure how much money John made, but he DID have a family to support and giving up a job would hinder that greatly, as we all know. But he obviously cared enough about his coworkers that he wanted them to have their spin-offs.

Still, throughout it all, the producers are to blame. That's money hungry Hollywood for you :rolleyes:

If you have any more info, please share Ed! I don't have the book that everyone has read on this matter, so any info would be greatly appreciated on my end! :wave:

First of all, if I can come in with my own 2 ¢ at this late date, Joyce DeWitt's argument made perfect sense. Whether or not one thinks she should or could have been included in the spin-off, the fact remains she was treated BADLY.

Her contention is that she was lied to, plain and simple. This is justified because she wasn't intended for Three's a Crowd? What kind of ethics do you have Solomon?

She approached her producers directly and asked them straight out if they were considering revamping the show or going in another direction. This was prior to ABC's decision to cancel Three's Company. She noticed that promo ads for the show, which used to include John Ritter, Joyce DeWitt and the other roommates (Suzanne Somers, Jenilee Harrison, and Priscilla Barnes) now only featured John Ritter and the guest-star for whatever episode that was being spotlighted. This got her curious and she asked them what was up about this.
They told her there was nothing going on and she trusted them. During the taping of the last episodes of the show (the whole crew knew at this point that they were being cancelled), the actors were put on hiatus and told that they were fine tuning the last episode of the show as the final hurrah. At this point, no one knew about the spin-off except for John Ritter.

The actors come back from their hiatus, all geared to give it their all for the last show, and they learn that instead of fine tuning the last show, the crew for the spin-off have been working at the same studio instead. Joyce and the rest of the actors all learned the truth, that they were deceived, and Joyce then learned that John Ritter had been part of that deception.

Some argue that the producers put John up to that deception, which is true. They really put him in an awkward position of having to choose between his friends or his job. He chose his job ultimately. Whether one agrees with that decision is irrelevant. It's what he chose to do and it hurt the others badly, especially Joyce. Just because he is dead now doesn't change the fact that he did indeed choose his job over his friends. But I do think it was cruel for the producers to do that to him, but then they weren't the kindest of folks now were they. It seems that Suzanne Somers was telling the truth all along about how abusive they were.

I think it's unfair to blame Mary Cadorette, or to say that she sucked or anything. We don't have to prove our loyalty to Joyce or Three's Company by knocking Mary or Three's a Crowd.

For what Mary was asked to do, I think she did a great job. Is it how I wanted things to be? Nope, but she didn't write the episodes either. And both she & Robert Mandan have commented how painful it was to be there while they were shooting the ending of Three's Company, but what were they to do? Quit on Joyce's behalf? Would Joyce have done that if the situation were reversed? Joyce didn't blame the spin-off actors and neither should we.

I don't know how Three's a Crowd would've fared with Joyce in the lead, and she has never said that she should've been Jack's love interest. She just thinks that some part of John's relationships with his former show needed to be in the new show, and that I agree with entirely. Janet Wood is the most logical person since she & Jack were there from the beginning, but surely visits from Janet could have occurred, or from Larry, Mr. Furley or even the Ropers. But no, those actors didn't a choice; the producers wrote them off with no intention of bringing them back even for a guest spot. They dropped them because in their minds, John Ritter was Three's Company.

I know some of you think John Ritter was the saint of all comedy, especially now that he's gone, but the producers thinking was way off and inaccurate. John wasn't the show, and quite frankly, I don't think John ever considered himself to be the show. He may have had confidence, but he wasn't stupid. That's like saying I Love Lucy could've existed without Ricky, Ethel or Fred. Lucy was the main, but she was only as strong as her supports. Without them, she would've been nothing. The same with Joey minus his Friends. It just isn't the same without the whole ensemble. Take away one character, even if it isn't the lead, and it falls apart.

Janet could have been part of the spin-off, even if she wasn't the girlfriend, but the producers clearly didn't value her or anyone else, much like they didn't value the Ropers or Chrissy or Cindy. All of them were written off callously. Even Suzanne Somers was willing to come back to the show at one point, and this was without her raise. Guess who said no to that? It was all about power and control folks. It's kind of abusive when you think about it.

Before I go: ever wonder how the producers were able to twist John Ritter's arm in this spin-off debacle? They told him they were going to try to do spin-offs for both of the girls (meaning Joyce & Priscilla). Clearly this was said because he had asked the producers "What about Joyce & Priscilla?". Pretty upstanding guy, no? But do you honestly think the producers ever had any intentions of making good on their promise to John? They had been lying all along by then, so why not to John? Seems they didn't value him much at all either, first by making him choose between his friends and then by lying to him. Looks like Joyce wasn't the only one to be deceived; everyone was.

Ahhh, the legacy of Three's Company. It's a credit to the actors that they were still able to make us laugh inspite of having to deal with so much bulljunk. That alone is a feat in and of itself...

Ed


The only spinoff Janet could have been apart of is a show about her. Not with Jack because it would have still been Three's Company.

Hey,

I wasn't aware of John accepting the job over his friends, but I suppose he did it for reasons that were personal to HIM. I'm not sure how much money John made, but he DID have a family to support and giving up a job would hinder that greatly, as we all know. But he obviously cared enough about his coworkers that he wanted them to have their spin-offs.

Right, and he obviously was concerned about his friends' welfare as well; otherwise he wouldn't have asked. Still, I'm not trying to demonize him or anything. Perhaps Joyce would've done the same thing if they had wanted to keep her and continue the show without John. Who knows? Still, it's what he chose and that has to stand.

Still, throughout it all, the producers are to blame. That's money hungry Hollywood for you :rolleyes:

If you have any more info, please share Ed! I don't have the book that everyone has read on this matter, so any info would be greatly appreciated on my end! :wave:

Sure thing, whenever things come to me. It's also things that I've learned from interviews that were telecast. It isn't from tabloids. I'll keep you posted!

Ed

The only spinoff Janet could have been apart of is a show about her. Not with Jack because it would have still been Three's Company.

For crying out loud Solomon. Do you even try to stick to your topics at all? You're the one who posted about Joyce's argument not making any sense, and I told you why it did.

What do you do? You respond: "The only spinoff Janet could have been apart of is a show about her. Not with Jack because it would have still been Three's Company."

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I swear you do this on purpose.

Who cares if the spin-off wouldn't have worked with Joyce? That wasn't the main idea, and you're the one who started this thread. Stick to your own topic.

It's not Joyce's argument that didn't make sense, it's yours. At least she can stick to her own topic...

Sheeshh...

Ed

Thanks, Ed! Means a lot to me. I still don't know a whole lot about what went on behind the scenes. I'll have to purchase that book sometime.

Yeah, I often think about what I would have done if I had been in that situation. I mean, people often do have to move because of their jobs, even if it means leaving behind friends and familiar situations(I know it's a shabby comparison but it does make sense). John was a nice guy.... I don't think he wanted to hurt his friends- but the producers put him in a situation that required a heartless decision and he made it. Plain and simple.

For crying out loud Solomon. Do you even try to stick to your topics at all? You're the one who posted about Joyce's argument not making any sense, and I told you why it did.

What do you do? You respond: "The only spinoff Janet could have been apart of is a show about her. Not with Jack because it would have still been Three's Company."

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I swear you do this on purpose.

Who cares if the spin-off wouldn't have worked with Joyce? That wasn't the main idea, and you're the one who started this thread. Stick to your own topic.

It's not Joyce's argument that didn't make sense, it's yours. At least she can stick to her own topic...

Sheeshh...

Ed



My point about Joyce was she was no more important than Richard Kline, Don Knotts, and Priscilla Barnes who also knew nothing about the spinoff. So they didn;t get upset about not hearing or being included in the spinoff so why did she? Her character was not on the same level of John Ritter's and WE ALL KNOW THAT. Anyone who says differently is fooling theirselves.

I know some of you think John Ritter was the saint of all comedy, especially now that he's gone, but the producers thinking was way off and inaccurate. John wasn't the show, and quite frankly, I don't think John ever considered himself to be the show. He may have had confidence, but he wasn't stupid. That's like saying I Love Lucy could've existed without Ricky, Ethel or Fred. Lucy was the main, but she was only as strong as her supports. Without them, she would've been nothing. The same with Joey minus his Friends. It just isn't the same without the whole ensemble. Take away one character, even if it isn't the lead, and it falls apart.
Ed

That is the main point to any TAC spin off topic....without the main characters the show wouldn't last. John may have been the gretest but he needed his supporting characters ...and logically Janet was the one that comes up the most because she was there from beginning to end...that is the same reason Larry comes up too, and that must have been why he did the guest apperance! Jack was always so sweet and nice and ALWAYS thought of his friends ...what kinda of a person did he turn into!?!? Never callling on the girls for anything not even to say hi...it was dumb. I think eventhough John never admitted it Janet should have been part of the show.

And I am sorry Ed but Mary didn't have the chemistry that the audience wanted to see between her and Jack.

Thanks, Ed! Means a lot to me. I still don't know a whole lot about what went on behind the scenes. I'll have to purchase that book sometime.

Yeah, I often think about what I would have done if I had been in that situation. I mean, people often do have to move because of their jobs, even if it means leaving behind friends and familiar situations(I know it's a shabby comparison but it does make sense). John was a nice guy.... I don't think he wanted to hurt his friends- but the producers put him in a situation that required a heartless decision and he made it. Plain and simple.
_________________

Hey retrogirl have you even seen made for tv movie behind the scenes of threes conpany yet?

My point about Joyce was she was no more important than Richard Kline, Don Knotts, and Priscilla Barnes who also knew nothing about the spinoff. So they didn;t get upset about not hearing or being included in the spinoff so why did she? Her character was not on the same level of John Ritter's and WE ALL KNOW THAT. Anyone who says differently is fooling theirselves.

Actually the others did get upset. Watch the E! True Hollywood Story on the show and you'll see that they all agree it was a shabby way to treat the cast. Even Suzanne Somers said that Joyce deserved better when she was interviewed for the book, and she & Joyce haven't spoken for years.

And I am not saying that Joyce's character was on the same par with John's, but without her character (either on TC or TAC), John's was the poorer for it. By the time the show ended, Jack & Janet were family and for that to suddenly end just because of a new spin-off didn't go well with the audience. The continuity wasn't there. You speak as if she meant nothing. You also speak like she had no right to be pissed off. I think you're wrong on both counts, and I'm sure plenty here will agree with me...

Ed

No I haven't :(




Thanks, Ed! Means a lot to me. I still don't know a whole lot about what went on behind the scenes. I'll have to purchase that book sometime.

Yeah, I often think about what I would have done if I had been in that situation. I mean, people often do have to move because of their jobs, even if it means leaving behind friends and familiar situations(I know it's a shabby comparison but it does make sense). John was a nice guy.... I don't think he wanted to hurt his friends- but the producers put him in a situation that required a heartless decision and he made it. Plain and simple.
_________________

Hey retrogirl have you even seen made for tv movie behind the scenes of threes conpany yet?

No I haven't :(
PM me or email me with an address i have 1 copy on vhs in good condition ill send it to u

To me it was a nice change to see Jack get away from Janet in Three's a Crowd. Janet was too damn controlling of Jack. I can't believe Joyce thought it would be a good idea for her to be cast as Jack's GF. Considering all the pretty GF's Jack had it would have been hard to believe that he'd settle for Janet.

I felt sorry for Joyce about the way the Producers handled it. The Producers should of been honest to her and told her that she will be no longer in the show when Joyce originally asked if there will be changes in the show. Yes I agree life is not fair but the producers should of handled it better than they did.

The problem I had when "Three's A Crowd" there was no chemistry between Mary Cadorette and John Ritter.

Yeah.. that's what I hated about the ending, the development between Vicky/Jack, Janet/Phillip was rushed and I believe the reason Three's A Crowd didn't make it was because everyone wanted Janet and Jack together.

I guess I didn't put things into perspective when I was a kid watching Three's Company segueing into TAC that I didn't think to myself "man if only Janet were on the show instead of Vicki".

I mean to me I enjoyed Three's A Crowd just as much as TC and was saddened when it got cancelled after one season.

But yeah in the end the producers made a douche bag move in not letting the cast mambers know a year in advance of the spin-off, that would give the cast time to look for other acting jobs.

But yeah in the end the producers made a douche bag move in not letting the cast mambers know a year in advance of the spin-off, that would give the cast time to look for other acting jobs.I'm not sure they had a year's advance notice to prepare the spinoff. Keep in mind the show in the 1982-83 season was ranked #6. Going into Season 8 it seemed the show was still a strong hit. Who would have known the ratings would drop so dramatically in 83-84? The show would have kept going had ratings stayed good. I'm not sure Joyce could have really have been given all that much of an advanced notice. I think she would have been upset not being included in anything no matter what. I can sympathize, but it's not like the producers of Three's Company owed her another job after Three's Company ended. Like TVFactFan said, if they brought everybody over into the spinoff, it's not a spinoff anymore, it's the ninth season of Three's Company and the network wasn't going to renew that. :lol: People were going to get left out of the spinoff. It was inevitable.

And why was Joyce so upset about not being included in the spinoff when she dropped out from acting after Three's Company ended anyway? She could have moved on to another sitcom, I'm sure.

I can sympathize, but it's not like the producers of Three's Company owed her another job after Three's Company ended. Like TVFactFan said, if they brought everybody over into the spinoff, it's not a spinoff anymore, it's the ninth season of Three's Company and the network wasn't going to renew that. :lol: People were going to get left out of the spinoff. It was inevitable.

And why was Joyce so upset about not being included in the spinoff when she dropped out from acting after Three's Company ended anyway? She could have moved on to another sitcom, I'm sure.
Well it's like you said, maybe she felt like she was owed something, like at least a say in the matter after being on a successful sitcom it was like another family to her maybe.

Well it's like you said, maybe she felt like she was owed something, like at least a say in the matter after being on a successful sitcom it was like another family to her maybe.
Seems to me the producers made it very clear throughout the run of the show that it was about business, always was.

I don't know how she could consider it being like a family with all the cast changes that took place through the run.

But I wasn't there, just an outside observer decades later.

I don't think it's likely she felt that the whole production was a family, but I do think Joyce was close with John and Priscilla toward the end. She felt betrayed by John, who went behind her back and agreed to do another show that was basically riding the coattails of TC, which she helped make a success. Maybe if he had been more upfront about it she wouldn't have protested so much.

I actually kind of agree with TVFactFan who said earlier that it would've been another TC if Joyce had signed on....and it wouldn't have made much sense for Janet and Jack to get together after eight years of being friends. But it does seem a little weird to have Jack and not Janet. I guess the formula just works so well.

I don't think it's likely she felt that the whole production was a family, but I do think Joyce was close with John and Priscilla toward the end. She felt betrayed by John, who went behind her back and agreed to do another show that was basically riding the coattails of TC, which she helped make a success. Maybe if he had been more upfront about it she wouldn't have protested so much.

I actually kind of agree with TVFactFan who said earlier that it would've been another TC if Joyce had signed on....and it wouldn't have made much sense for Janet and Jack to get together after eight years of being friends. But it does seem a little weird to have Jack and not Janet. I guess the formula just works so well.
Yeah it does seem weird that John Ritter was willing to participate in keeping it a secret. If he had revealed, what was the worst that could have happened? Would the producers have not gone through with the spinoff? Doubtful as there was money to be made. Maybe I don't understand the ins and outs of a business but I probably couldn't keep such a thing under wraps from the other cast members. Then again that's why I wouldn't be a good actor. :lol:

I haven't read through all the pages of the thread, so I may have overlooked something.

But it seems that no one is aware that Three's a Crowd was simply following the formula of Robin's Nest. Robin Tripp didn't end up with Chrissy or Jo when Man About the House turned into Robin's Nest. So there was no precedent for Jack Tripper to end up with Janet Wood in Three's a Crowd.

That would have been a very easy thing for the producers of Three's Company to explain to Joyce DeWitt. Why they dodged and hid is a mystery to me.

I think they dodged and hid because they knew the kind of reaction to expect from DeWitt.

She regularly challenged the producers on material and script, at least in earlier seasons, so they probably just didn't want to "hear it."

If she hadn't come in early and overheard the plans, she wouldn't have heard the truth for a while. The producers were probably waiting until a table read to broach the issue so she couldn't make too much of a scene.

While you bring up a good point about Robin's Nest, I'm sure that wouldn't be a viable excuse in DeWitt's eyes. Three's Company was on for 8 years and had become its own thing, running four seasons beyond the original MATH and establishing its own cred. So by the time Season 8 rolled around I'm sure comparisons to MATH were no longer considered solid excuses for anything.

The season 6 episode of TC already showed that Jack and Janet were more compatible as friends