The other night on TV Land they aired the next to last episode of when Janet got married to Philip. When I was watching it I was thinking why the Ropers weren't in that episode as guests. I don't think there was any bad blood between Norman,Audra and the producers. Can anyone shed some light on this?

That is one of the reasons why I think the finale stunk. The Ropers should have been there.

Yea, that pisses me off too :mad: I believed a lot of people should've been there-- how about Cindy or Lana? Chrissy was obviously not a good choice but they should've brought back some minor characters. Especially the Ropers, though...I mean, they WERE their landlords for...what? 3 years? The producers really screwed up with that one.

Janets parents weren't in the final episode either. I also would have like to see CIndy and the Ropers. I think they should have had the weddng at Jacks Bistro or the Regale Begale instead if there apartment

The producers were more concerned with creating Three's A Crowd then to having a proper ending for Three's Company.

Yea, that pisses me off too :mad: I believed a lot of people should've been there-- how about Cindy or Lana? Chrissy was obviously not a good choice but they should've brought back some minor characters. Especially the Ropers, though...I mean, they WERE their landlords for...what? 3 years? The producers really screwed up with that one.



It wouldn't have made sense for Lana to be there because her and Janet were not Friends.

The producers were more concerned with creating Three's A Crowd then to having a proper ending for Three's Company.

yeah thats always true

The producers were more concerned with creating Three's A Crowd then to having a proper ending for Three's Company.

I totally agree! :mad:

I totally agree! :mad:


Hey there Yo!! I got your package today and will watch soon!!! :D :dance: :yourock: :bighug: :woohoo:

The producers were more concerned with creating Three's A Crowd then to having a proper ending for Three's Company.
You're absolutley correct. They were too busy trying to give a perfect start for "Three's A Crowd" to even give "Three's Company" the proper ending it deserved.

I think the Ropers, Cindy, and Janet's parents should of been at Janet's wedding. I would of liked to have seen Chrissy too, but we all know that that wouldn't have been possible because of the whole Suzanne Somers contract dispute. However, I don't see the problem in bringing the Ropers, Cindy, and Janet's parents to the wedding (bringing Lana wouldn't really have a purpose since the only reason why she came to the apartment was because of Jack, and she wasn't really ever friends with Janet or Chrissy).

You're absolutley correct. They were too busy trying to give a perfect start for "Three's A Crowd" to even give "Three's Company" the proper ending it deserved.

I think the Ropers, Cindy, and Janet's parents should of been at Janet's wedding. I would of liked to have seen Chrissy too, but we all know that that wouldn't have been possible because of the whole Suzanne Somers contract dispute. However, I don't see the problem in bringing the Ropers, Cindy, and Janet's parents to the wedding (bringing Lana wouldn't really have a purpose since the only reason why she came to the apartment was because of Jack, and she wasn't really ever friends with Janet or Chrissy).
Even though Chrissy couldn't have made an appearance, they could have at least mentioned her. It would have been nice to find out what happened to her.

Even though Chrissy couldn't have made an appearance, they could have at least mentioned her. It would have been nice to find out what happened to her.
I 100% agree.

The Ropers, Cindy, Lana and Chrissy would never ever agree to appear on the show in real life for the finale (or at least the actors who portrayed them anyway). Every single one of these actors, even Suzanne Somers, were treated BADLY by the show's producers. Even though Suzanne, according to some, got what she deserved, early on in the dispute she was interested in coming back to the show and was willing to drop her demands, but no, the producers wanted to make sure she suffered and dropped her, dragging her name and reputation in the mud while doing it.

The Ropers were basically tricked into doing their spinoff. When they tried to return to the show after their spinoff was cancelled, they were told by the producers that they weren't needed anymore. The thing that was dirty about it was that Norman Fell (Mr. Roper) didn't want to do the spinoff in the first place. He would rather have finished the show out for however long it ran. He was promised that if the show was cancelled after one season, he could return to Three's Company. The thing is, The Ropers ran for a season and a 1/2, and the producers counted that 1/2 season as being past the guarantee. Thus he and Audra couldn't return to the show. You think after being screwed like that that they'd want to help the producers out by being part of the draw for the last episode? Fat chance.

Cindy (Jenilee Harrison) was phased out the following season after Suzanne was fired and was not even given any explanation as to where she went. All the while, her role diminished with every appearance that she made while appearing next to her replacement, Terri (Priscilla Barnes). Talk about insensitive.

Lana (Anne Wedgeworth) had a similar treatment to Jenilee's, only her tenure was much shorter. What brought her exile from the show was that she initially was promised that she'd have a substantial part in the show. Instead she was given 5 minutes here, 2 minutes there. When she realized that she wasn't given what she was promised, she asked to be released from the show. Do you think either actress would agree to come back? I doubt it...

Even Terri (Priscilla Barnes) commented via interview that her 3 year tenure on the show was the worst 3 years of her life due to the abuse she suffered from the producers.

Me thinks Suzanne Somers was right about what she was claiming when it came to the show's producers. There's too many actors (who didn't want raises) who suffered similarly like Suzanne did. I think Suzanne was being more truthful than everyone initially believed. Oh well, at least she came back inspite of being blackballed. Good for her!

Ed

The Ropers, Cindy, Lana and Chrissy would never ever agree to appear on the show in real life for the finale (or at least the actors who portrayed them anyway). Every single one of these actors, even Suzanne Somers, were treated BADLY by the show's producers. Even though Suzanne, according to some, got what she deserved, early on in the dispute she was interested in coming back to the show and was willing to drop her demands, but no, the producers wanted to make sure she suffered and dropped her, dragging her name and reputation in the mud while doing it.

The Ropers were basically tricked into doing their spinoff. When they tried to return to the show after their spinoff was cancelled, they were told by the producers that they weren't needed anymore. The thing that was dirty about it was that Norman Fell (Mr. Roper) didn't want to do the spinoff in the first place. He would rather have finished the show out for however long it ran. He was promised that if the show was cancelled after one season, he could return to Three's Company. The thing is, The Ropers ran for a season and a 1/2, and the producers counted that 1/2 season as being past the guarantee. Thus he and Audra couldn't return to the show. You think after being screwed like that that they'd want to help the producers out by being part of the draw for the last episode? Fat chance.

Cindy (Jenilee Harrison) was phased out the following season after Suzanne was fired and was not even given any explanation as to where she went. All the while, her role diminished with every appearance that she made while appearing next to her replacement, Terri (Priscilla Barnes). Talk about insensitive.

Lana (Anne Wedgeworth) had a similar treatment to Jenilee's, only her tenure was much shorter. What brought her exile from the show was that she initially was promised that she'd have a substantial part in the show. Instead she was given 5 minutes here, 2 minutes there. When she realized that she wasn't given what she was promised, she asked to be released from the show. Do you think either actress would agree to come back? I doubt it...

Even Terri (Priscilla Barnes) commented via interview that her 3 year tenure on the show was the worst 3 years of her life due to the abuse she suffered from the producers.

Me thinks Suzanne Somers was right about what she was claiming when it came to the show's producers. There's too many actors (who didn't want raises) who suffered similarly like Suzanne did. I think Suzanne was being more truthful than everyone initially believed. Oh well, at least she came back inspite of being blackballed. Good for her!

Ed




It wouldn;t have been any reason for Lana to be there because she was not a friend of Janet's

It wouldn;t have been any reason for Lana to be there because she was not a friend of Janet's

Again, you missed the point Solomon (but hey, no one expects you to change at this point dude). Someone on the thread remarked about Lana's absence during the show's last episode. I said the actress would never have agreed to appear even if the producers wanted her. That was the point of my post.

Who cares if she wasn't a friend of Janet's? She could have appeared in the episode anyway, just not at the wedding. Perhaps she could have appeared in a scene where she was coming onto Jack while Vicky was looking, making for a funny misunderstanding or something like that. Who knows...

Either way, the actress would probably never have agreed to come back for even the last episode, since she was treated badly. That was the point of my post. Sorry if that wasn't clear, although I think it was...

Ed

The Ropers, Cindy, Lana and Chrissy would never ever agree to appear on the show in real life for the finale (or at least the actors who portrayed them anyway). Every single one of these actors, even Suzanne Somers, were treated BADLY by the show's producers. Even though Suzanne, according to some, got what she deserved, early on in the dispute she was interested in coming back to the show and was willing to drop her demands, but no, the producers wanted to make sure she suffered and dropped her, dragging her name and reputation in the mud while doing it.

The Ropers were basically tricked into doing their spinoff. When they tried to return to the show after their spinoff was cancelled, they were told by the producers that they weren't needed anymore. The thing that was dirty about it was that Norman Fell (Mr. Roper) didn't want to do the spinoff in the first place. He would rather have finished the show out for however long it ran. He was promised that if the show was cancelled after one season, he could return to Three's Company. The thing is, The Ropers ran for a season and a 1/2, and the producers counted that 1/2 season as being past the guarantee. Thus he and Audra couldn't return to the show. You think after being screwed like that that they'd want to help the producers out by being part of the draw for the last episode? Fat chance.

Cindy (Jenilee Harrison) was phased out the following season after Suzanne was fired and was not even given any explanation as to where she went. All the while, her role diminished with every appearance that she made while appearing next to her replacement, Terri (Priscilla Barnes). Talk about insensitive.

Lana (Anne Wedgeworth) had a similar treatment to Jenilee's, only her tenure was much shorter. What brought her exile from the show was that she initially was promised that she'd have a substantial part in the show. Instead she was given 5 minutes here, 2 minutes there. When she realized that she wasn't given what she was promised, she asked to be released from the show. Do you think either actress would agree to come back? I doubt it...

Even Terri (Priscilla Barnes) commented via interview that her 3 year tenure on the show was the worst 3 years of her life due to the abuse she suffered from the producers.

Me thinks Suzanne Somers was right about what she was claiming when it came to the show's producers. There's too many actors (who didn't want raises) who suffered similarly like Suzanne did. I think Suzanne was being more truthful than everyone initially believed. Oh well, at least she came back inspite of being blackballed. Good for her!

Ed

I agree with you 200%!

Again, you missed the point Solomon (but hey, no one expects you to change at this point dude). Someone on the thread remarked about Lana's absence during the show's last episode. I said the actress would never have agreed to appear even if the producers wanted her. That was the point of my post.

Who cares if she wasn't a friend of Janet's? She could have appeared in the episode anyway, just not at the wedding. Perhaps she could have appeared in a scene where she was coming onto Jack while Vicky was looking, making for a funny misunderstanding or something like that. Who knows...

Either way, the actress would probably never have agreed to come back for even the last episode, since she was treated badly. That was the point of my post. Sorry if that wasn't clear, although I think it was...

Ed
The Ropers did guest star on an episode after their show was canceled so I think they might have returned. Jenilee was on Dallas at the time so I don't know if it was possible for her to be on it. Lana wasn't really needed.

The Ropers did guest star on an episode after their show was canceled so I think they might have returned. Jenilee was on Dallas at the time so I don't know if it was possible for her to be on it. Lana wasn't really needed.

Again, I'm not commenting on whether Lana was needed. To be honest, I didn't miss her during the finale. My point is that I don't think the actress would've wanted to participate. It's hard to find the incentive when you've been screwed over. And I think Jenilee joined Dallas in the fall of 1984, when Three's a Crowd made its debut. Even if this weren't the case, surely even a cameo appearance by Cindy could've been arranged even if she was on Dallas. I watched the show when she was on it and she didn't exactly get tons of screentime. She was simply forgotten, plain and simple, just like half of the cast was. If the producers had no problem screwing Joyce DeWitt the way they did, why should it surprise any of us that the other supporting characters were treated similarly? Again, Suzanne Somers was speaking the truth, at least when it came to the producers. They were apparently brilliant writers but horrible people ethically...

Ed

Again, you missed the point Solomon (but hey, no one expects you to change at this point dude). Someone on the thread remarked about Lana's absence during the show's last episode. I said the actress would never have agreed to appear even if the producers wanted her. That was the point of my post.

Who cares if she wasn't a friend of Janet's? She could have appeared in the episode anyway, just not at the wedding. Perhaps she could have appeared in a scene where she was coming onto Jack while Vicky was looking, making for a funny misunderstanding or something like that. Who knows...

Either way, the actress would probably never have agreed to come back for even the last episode, since she was treated badly. That was the point of my post. Sorry if that wasn't clear, although I think it was...

Ed




Yeah i don;t know if you knew this but usually when someone attends a wedding it's because they are friends of the bride or groom. Lana never even talked to Janet so why would she have attended her wedding?-lol Maybe Cindy could have went to Elenenor's Wedding in Season 9-LOL LOL

I personally feel so bad for anyone that was involved with that production company. You're right Edster-- they treated their actors like crap, quite frankly. See, on one hand I could see where Suzanne was trying to be greedy and did instigate a lot of the trouble by asking for an insane amount of money(plus a piece of the profits? Woah...) On the other hand, though, by the way the producers callously wrote off actors and forgot about them is reason enough to be sympathetic to Suzanne. The unauthorized movie about TC really makes Suzanne look greedy as anything-- but it also shows that the "big guys" had much of a hand in all the drama that went on.

Out of the whole cast, I really pity Norman Fell, Audra Lindley, and Joyce Dewitt the most. All Norman wanted was to be a part of the show-- and he was denied it even after being told he could come back. Audra DID want to go off on their own series, but I bet she would've liked to come back with Norman had the opportunity been given to them. Ok, I know Don Knotts was now the new landlord....but couldn't they have worked it in so that Norman and Audra could have SOME sort of role? I feel so bad for them :(

And the way they deceived Joyce was just unforgivable....what a thing to do to one of your main actresses *shakes head*

But you're right-- I doubt any of them would've come back after the crap they went through.

Yeah i don;t know if you knew this but usually when someone attends a wedding it's because they are friends of the bride or groom. Lana never even talked to Janet so why would she have attended her wedding?-lol Maybe Cindy could have went to Elenenor's Wedding in Season 9-LOL LOL

Sigh... Solomon, Solomon, Solomon... please READ what I wrote. I didn't say Lana should have appeared at Janet's wedding. No where did I say that. I just said that if she were to have made an appearance, it could have been as a scene where she comes onto Jack while Vicky, either amused or feeling jealous, looks on. Jack & Vicky had plenty of scenes before and after the wedding. Couldn't something like that have taken place with Lana either before or after the wedding? Do you get it now? Hope so... :confused:

Heck, Felipé & Mr. Angelino could have made an appearance as well, if there had been a scene (either prior or after the wedding) at Jack's Bistro. Not everything had to tie in to Janet's wedding.

And please, anyone else who may read this, I am in no way lobbying for Lana to have made an appearance in the last episode. To be honest, I never even gave that a second thought. Chrissy's absence seemed wrong (even if Suzanne's absence in real life was understood) as did the Ropers. I'm just trying to give some of you an explanation as to why those guest appearances may not have happened. That is all. Nothing more.

Ed

Again, I'm not commenting on whether Lana was needed. To be honest, I didn't miss her during the finale. My point is that I don't think the actress would've wanted to participate. It's hard to find the incentive when you've been screwed over. And I think Jenilee joined Dallas in the fall of 1984, when Three's a Crowd made its debut. Even if this weren't the case, surely even a cameo appearance by Cindy could've been arranged even if she was on Dallas. I watched the show when she was on it and she didn't exactly get tons of screentime. She was simply forgotten, plain and simple, just like half of the cast was. If the producers had no problem screwing Joyce DeWitt the way they did, why should it surprise any of us that the other supporting characters were treated similarly? Again, Suzanne Somers was speaking the truth, at least when it came to the producers. They were apparently brilliant writers but horrible people ethically...

Ed
Yea you are right she joined Dallas in the fall of 1984. Because the show didn't air its final episode until September, I keep forgetting .It should of aired in May. It was scheduled to air then and then postponed at the last minute.

I know those producers where not exactly nice people. It is nice finding someone on SO actually defending Suzanne. I never agreed with what she did but its rediculous for some people to hold a grudge after all these years.

Sigh... Solomon, Solomon, Solomon... please READ what I wrote. I didn't say Lana should have appeared at Janet's wedding. No where did I say that. I just said that if she were to have made an appearance, it could have been as a scene where she comes onto Jack while Vicky, either amused or feeling jealous, looks on. Jack & Vicky had plenty of scenes before and after the wedding. Couldn't something like that have taken place with Lana either before or after the wedding? Do you get it now? Hope so... :confused:

Heck, Felipé & Mr. Angelino could have made an appearance as well, if there had been a scene (either prior or after the wedding) at Jack's Bistro. Not everything had to tie in to Janet's wedding.

And please, anyone else who may read this, I am in no way lobbying for Lana to have made an appearance in the last episode. To be honest, I never even gave that a second thought. Chrissy's absence seemed wrong (even if Suzanne's absence in real life was understood) as did the Ropers. I'm just trying to give some of you an explanation as to why those guest appearances may not have happened. That is all. Nothing more.

Ed




It would have been nice to see Lana make a later guest appearance once Jack had his Bistro. She could have appeared in season 7 or 8 or in Three's a Crowd to find out Jack had a steady girlfriend. I could see Lana causing Jack to drop a tray of food in the Bistro from attacking him-lol

:lol: That would've been quite a comeback...I would've liked to have seen that.


It would have been nice to see Lana make a later guest appearance once Jack had his Bistro. She could have appeared in season 7 or 8 or in Three's a Crowd to find out Jack had a steady girlfriend. I could see Lana causing Jack to drop a tray of food in the Bistro from attacking him-lol

I personally feel so bad for anyone that was involved with that production company. You're right Edster-- they treated their actors like crap, quite frankly. See, on one hand I could see where Suzanne was trying to be greedy and did instigate a lot of the trouble by asking for an insane amount of money(plus a piece of the profits? Woah...)

Actually, she wasn't asking for anything that isn't done today. Nowadays it's common practice for actors to get a share of the show's profits if it's a megahit and the actors have clout, like Friends or Everybody Loves Raymond. She was just one of the first WOMEN to do so, and was thus castigated for doing so. The producers painting her as the anti-Christ didn't help her cause either. And she claims that whatever she got, John & Joyce would've gotten as well, and there's no reason to not believe her on that point at least. Her ribs story is suspect, I'll grant you, but hey, she was in a corner and was trying to fend off many of the lies said about her (probably instigated by the producers) so at least it's understood. I don't condone it, mind you, but I can see that she wasn't evil.

Out of the whole cast, I really pity Norman Fell, Audra Lindley, and Joyce Dewitt the most. All Norman wanted was to be a part of the show-- and he was denied it even after being told he could come back. Audra DID want to go off on their own series, but I bet she would've liked to come back with Norman had the opportunity been given to them. Ok, I know Don Knotts was now the new landlord....but couldn't they have worked it in so that Norman and Audra could have SOME sort of role? I feel so bad for them :(

What would have been interesting is if they had returned, but not as landlords but as tenants themselves. Perhaps that would've given the show new fodder to explore where the Ropers (or at least Stanley) tries to oust Mr. Furley while Helen foils his plans. The trio in the meantime have their fun as well in the shenanigans. But again, the producers didn't want to pay for them to return. Having Don Knotts who was ONE actor made the Ropers who were TWO actors more of an expense and thus expendable. It's how show business works...

And the way they deceived Joyce was just unforgivable....what a thing to do to one of your main actresses *shakes head*

Yeah, she was treated worst of all, especially since they made John choose between being part of the deception and his friendship with Joyce. Bad enough to do that to her, but to force John to be part of it was also insensitive.

Don't get me wrong. I think he should be accountable for having made his decision to deceive Joyce, however minimally, but for the producers to do that to John, to put him in that awkward position, it shows that they had no more respect for him than anyone else that worked for them, and John was their favorite. How screwed up is that! :rolleyes:


Ed

It would have been nice to see Lana make a later guest appearance once Jack had his Bistro. She could have appeared in season 7 or 8 or in Three's a Crowd to find out Jack had a steady girlfriend. I could see Lana causing Jack to drop a tray of food in the Bistro from attacking him-lol

Yeah, that would've been humorous, a nice nod to the last episode that she appeared in when she poured a drink over his head because she believed that Jack was the guy who was having an affair with one of his roommates in the Dear Abby letter.

The finale could've been a lot better than it was, but we're stuck with it, for better or worse...

Ed

It all makes me so sick :( I really feel for anyone who was deceived by them--hell, I guess I feel bad for everyone. I don't have anything against Suzanne, actually. I just wish things could've been done differently. Maybe my feelings about this are skewed by all the movies and backlash about her-- but, personally, I still love her as an actress and that's all that matters. She was, and still is, my favorite blonde roommate :)

p.s. I love your idea about the Ropers coming back as tenants :lol:

It all makes me so sick :( I really feel for anyone who was deceived by them--hell, I guess I feel bad for everyone. I don't have anything against Suzanne, actually. I just wish things could've been done differently. Maybe my feelings about this are skewed by all the movies and backlash about her-- but, personally, I still love her as an actress and that's all that matters. She was, and still is, my favorite blonde roommate :)

p.s. I love your idea about the Ropers coming back as tenants :lol:
I was angry at her for a long time but she suffered for it. She was practically blacklisted from tv during the 1980's. I always liked her and she was my favorite roomate next to Jack although I liked her character better before they dunbed her down so much. I think it says a lot for all the acters though that they created characters that people still loved and they did it under less then good conditions.

It all makes me so sick :( I really feel for anyone who was deceived by them--hell, I guess I feel bad for everyone. I don't have anything against Suzanne, actually. I just wish things could've been done differently. Maybe my feelings about this are skewed by all the movies and backlash about her-- but, personally, I still love her as an actress and that's all that matters. She was, and still is, my favorite blonde roommate :)

p.s. I love your idea about the Ropers coming back as tenants :lol:

Look at Roseanne Barr, Brett Butler, Cybill Shephard, and the female cast of Friends. They all did what Suzanne did and they were heralded as heroes. Some of them even refused to go to work until their requests (or demands) were met. Where's the backlash for these actors? And yet Suzanne's head is still on the chopping block? Seems pretty unfair to me, no? At the very least it's inconsistent. The difference in Suzanne's situation is that she was way too early in asserting herself. The show business world, and society in general, was simply not ready for a woman who attempted to be paid somewhat comparable to the men in her field. And given how females were treated back then, she had to resort to being somewhat sneaky about it. Had she been totally civil, she would've been fired anyway. Richard Kline made one simple suggestion to the producers about a line in the script and he was written out of the show's next 4 episodes. It was hardly a democratic setup...

Ed

You're absolutely right-- the actors just did what they did because they loved doing it, regardless of their environment and all the stresses. Always professionals.

You know, I heard how they were angry at Suzanne for using her Chrissy character for her stage act-- they said the writers had created that character and owned it. True, yes. They do own it. But Suzanne was the one who made her come alive. Screenwriters can't make a character really work unless they have a talented actor/actress give it its own life-- just as an actor can't work if they don't have a character to go by :crazy: I dunno...I guess I just never saw the big deal with it...legal issues, I know. But just another way to demean her just the same. :mad:



I was angry at her for a long time but she suffered for it. She was practically blacklisted from tv during the 1980's. I always liked her and she was my favorite roomate next to Jack although I liked her character better before they dunbed her down so much. I think it says a lot for all the acters though that they created characters that people still loved and they did it under less then good conditions.

Wow, I never knew they did that to Richard. Seems to me the producers have some major control issues...well, like you said, that's show biz. Sounds like more of a dictatorship *rolls eyes*

Suzanne just wanted to be paid what she thought she deserved.









Look at Roseanne Barr, Brett Butler, Cybill Shephard, and the female cast of Friends. They all did what Suzanne did and they were heralded as heroes. Some of them even refused to go to work until their requests (or demands) were met. Where's the backlash for these actors? And yet Suzanne's head is still on the chopping block? Seems pretty unfair to me, no? At the very least it's inconsistent. The difference in Suzanne's situation is that she was way too early in asserting herself. The show business world, and society in general, was simply not ready for a woman who attempted to be paid somewhat comparable to the men in her field. And given how females were treated back then, she had to resort to being somewhat sneaky about it. Had she been totally civil, she would've been fired anyway. Richard Kline made one simple suggestion to the producers about a line in the script and he was written out of the show's next 4 episodes. It was hardly a democratic setup...

Ed

and thats why when Joyce wanted something from the producers, she got John to ask for her. He was the only person the producers bothered to listen to.

A copy and paste from two of my earlier postings:

Many of you on this thread mention how great it would have been if the main cast members who left (Chrissy, Cindy, Mr. & Mrs. Roper, Lana) would have rerturned one last time for the Sitcom finale. I totally agree with that. But I think in the end it all depends on whether the both the producers and the actor/actress is willing to return for the finale. Also, this is dependant on assuming the producers know that it is a finale as some sitcoms did produce a final episode, but it obviously was not a finale.

Below, I have compiled a list of long-running series finales in which the main past cast members (usually those who appeared when the show first started) returned for the last episode, and another list of sitcoms that did not bring back the cast member. As you can see, there are a lot more sitcoms that did NOT bring back main past cast members, so Three's Company definitely was not alone. I admire those sitcoms that were able to bring back all the original cast members for a final reunion in the grand finale.

Sitcoms in which past cast members returned for the finale

1. Cheers - Shelley Long as Diane Chambers returned.

2. Growing Pains - Tracey Gold as Carol Seaver returned for the final few episodes despite her battle with anorexia.

3. Star Trek: The Next Generation - Despite being killed off, Denise Crosby returned as Tasha Yar in a skillfully written finale.

4. Dallas - Several past characters.

5. The Wonder Years - Olivia D'Abo returned as Karen in the finale.


Sitcoms in which past cast members did NOT return in the finale

1. Home Improvement - Jonathan Taylor Thomas never returned as Randy in the final episode even though he was well liked by many. Neither did Pamela Anderson as Lisa, the first tool-time girl.

2. Cosby Show - Lisa Bonet did not return as the second daughter, Denise, in the finale.

3. Family Matters - the youngest daughter, Judy, was written out of the series and never returned.

4. Diff'rent Strokes - Dana Plato as Kimberley missed many episodes in the last season including the finale, as did the past housekeepers.

5. Married...With Children - Steve was not in the finale.

6. Beverly Hills 90210 - Shannen Doherty as Brenda was not in the finale.

7. The Facts of Life - I don't think Charlotte Rae as Mrs. Garrett was in the final episode.

Assuming that everything in the TV-movie "Behind the Camera: The Unauthorized Story of Three's Company" depicted the real-life situation correctly, then it becomes very obvious why Chrissy could not realistically appear in the final episode. The producers disliked Suzanne Somers so much and vice versa that there was no way the two sides could ever cooperate to do another episode ever again.

To a lesser extent, the same thing may be said of Norman Fell and Audra Lindley for being deceived into thinking that their spinoff would do well, and maybe even of Jenilee Harrison for being written out of the show. I think it's very difficult for any actor/actress to depart on good terms with the producers if they are written out of the show. It's almost like being being fired. What employee departs on good terms with a firm that fires them?

Of course, from the viewers point of view it's always good to see old characters return one last time. And if the producers really wanted to yield to the sentimental wishes of their loyal audience, I think the least they could have done was to hire lookalike actors and actresses for the role of past characters. Of course, it will never be as good as the originals, but it's probably better than nothing. I know of at least two sitcoms that had different people playing the same character, and it didn't produce that much of a difference:

1. Roseanne: Both Alicia Goranson and Sarah Chalke played Becky Connor.

2. Baywatch: First Brandon Call, and then Jeremy Jackson played Hobie Buchanon.