Not to say that Joyce or Suzanne/Jenilee/Priscilla couldn't have gave the performance John Ritter did in that episode, but the fact is they didn't and he had to bust his a**. He deserved to make $50,000 an episode while Joyce and Suzanne only made $30 K. Who knew John Ritter could dance? I don't know anything about dancing, so maybe he couldn't, but he made it look passable.

Of course, it could have been sexism in the first place for the writers to not give the female cast members more physically demanding stunts to have to pull off, and maybe Joyce and the other women could have done it were they asked to, but the fact is John had to take a lot pratfalls and doors to the face. Granted sometimes the women were involved in some physical comedy, but it mostly entailed them falling off the couch and they did not get hit as hard or fall as hard as John did or as often. If they had they would have deserved equal pay. However John just really fell down hard in some scenes and took the bruises that came with it. He earned his pay.

I agree John Ritter earned his pay. Joyce DeWitt also got knocked around a lot. Not as often as Jack, but still. He was always throwing her around. John was definitely the star of the show, but the fact is that it was an ensemble show. Without at least Joyce, there is no Three's Company. Period. If you look at ensemble shows like Friends and The Simpsons, the core cast was paid equally, although you could argue that The Simpsons star is Homer, and therefore the guy who voices him is the MVP. Look at Seinfeld. Jerry Seinfeld earned $1 million per ep and the three supporting characters made $600,000 per ep. BUT that was because a) Seinfeld was the producer and co-creator, and therefore had ownership in the show and b) his name is in the title, so he is clearly the main guy although it is an ensemble cast.

John Ritter had zero ownership in the show, did not write/produce/direct....he was "just" an actor. A mighty fine one, yes, and arguably the funniest and most inimitable part of TC. But to me I don't think it's fair he earned nearly twice of what the two other parts of THREE'S Company. I think it was clearly sexism. The other two actors were women, and therefore "less than." And although I am a Chrissy fan, I have to say that without Joyce as Janet the show would've been as much in a ditch as it would've been if John had left. Their chemistry and work in tandem to each other are really what saved the show.

I get what you're saying, and at first glance I agree, but then I start thinking about it and I find that if it were today, the TC trio would be paid equally. I don't watch it, but The Big Bang Theory is a core cast of three, and they recently have been in negotiations to raise their pay---and pains were taken, apparently, to make sure they have financial parity with each other. So there you go.

I get what you're saying, and at first glance I agree, but then I start thinking about it and I find that if it were today, the TC trio would be paid equally.
Yeah today they probably would, but then again they wouldn't do the same style of comedy today. I doubt any modern sitcom actor does the physically demanding stunts John Ritter did. I chalk up the extra pay per episode as "hazard pay".

Three's Company was less of an ensemble show to me than Seinfeld or The Big Bang Theory was. It was clear in Three's that it was meant to be a vehicle for John, and I think his pay over the others was appropriate. Suzanne may have become a breakout star, but she wasn't so big that the show couldn't afford to lose her, and I think the quality of the Season 5 and 6 episodes proved the show could go on without her. I will grant you that Joyce is probably more important to the show than Suzanne.

Yeah today they probably would, but then again they wouldn't do the same style of comedy today. I doubt any modern sitcom actor does the physically demanding stunts John Ritter did. I chalk up the extra pay per episode as "hazard pay".

Three's Company was less of an ensemble show to me than Seinfeld or The Big Bang Theory was. It was clear in Three's that it was meant to be a vehicle for John, and I think his pay over the others was appropriate. Suzanne may have become a breakout star, but she wasn't so big that the show couldn't afford to lose her, and I think the quality of the Season 5 and 6 episodes proved the show could go on without her. I will grant you that Joyce is probably more important to the show than Suzanne.
She might have been but she was replaceable too. Everyone was but John. TC was pretty successful with replacing actors. I'm not taking anything away from any of them because I think they were all great.

Does anybody really think Priscilla Barnes deserved to make as much as John Ritter? I mean don't get me wrong Terri is great, but in Season 6 John's doing the heavy lifting of having to carry a show.

This is not sexism. This is just fact.

I agree, but they all was important because when Janet was missing in that one ep in season 3 I was missing her a bit

And the same with chrissy missing in season 5


But Jack was the straw that stirred the drink

Sometimes I wonder if any of those constant pratfalls and tripping over things didn't contribute to John's death.

I think back to the last 2-part series finale in which Jack is trying to make a point with Teri and then Jack inavertedly hits his chest with a hammer, I mean sure maybe the hammer was a rubber prop but it made a thud when he dropped it.

I agree, but they all was important because when Janet was missing in that one ep in season 3 I was missing her a bit

And the same with chrissy missing in season 5


But Jack was the straw that stirred the drink
I agree with Janet about Season 3. But not Chrissy in Season 5. She was annoying me by season 4. Her phone scenes in Season 5 were the worst parts of each show I thought. Chrissy being dumb got old in Season 4 and the nail was in the coffin come Season 5.

No one probably would have guessed it in Season 4 with the focus being between John and mostly Suzanne but Joyce WAS more important to the show than Suzanne. It really becomes more apparent in the later years.

Sometimes I wonder if any of those constant pratfalls and tripping over things didn't contribute to John's death.

I think back to the last 2-part series finale in which Jack is trying to make a point with Teri and then Jack inavertedly hits his chest with a hammer, I mean sure maybe the hammer was a rubber prop but it made a thud when he dropped it.
It had to have some kind of adverse affect on his health.....you don't know. Maybe all the falling loosened up the valve in his heart. I wouldn't have wanted his job. He had to take a rougher road to sitcom stardom than most actors did. No one and I mean NOBODY is doing today on TV what John did then.

Does anybody really think Priscilla Barnes deserved to make as much as John Ritter? I mean don't get me wrong Terri is great, but in Season 6 John's doing the heavy lifting of having to carry a show.

This is not sexism. This is just fact.

I agree---John was the stand-out of the show, and he did the most physically demanding parts of it. I still think he didn't deserve to be paid almost double what the women made. If it were $50,000 to their $40 or 45,000, maybe that would have made sense. But there was a a pretty wide gap there. I'm saying the wage gap was sexism, not your point that John "worked" harder, which is valid.

And it definitely was an ensemble cast. Don't believe me? Watch a few episodes of Three's A Crowd. Jack is still pratfalling, clumsy, and goofy, with much less success or humor. Without the ensemble of Joyce and Suzanne/Priscilla, John Ritter's pratfalling is afloat at sea. You can't work in a vacuum.

Yes, the show did get lucky with replacing people. I actually think it was good that Season 5 was sort of "breathing room" to acclimate the audience to not having Suzanne around. Too quick a transition would've been, well, too quick. But although I like Furley, I'm sorry, he just never quite measures up to the Ropers. Same with Priscilla. She's great, and she may have even been a better actress and/or character than Suzanne, but the chemistry between Suzanne, John, and Joyce in early episodes (Season 1-3) is pretty inimitable.

That's what a farce relies upon---how well the moving parts work together, not necessarily how wonderful the individual parts are. As in any show, there is usually one stand-out character, but he or she needs the rest of the machine to work with them to truly shine.

I agree with Janet about Season 3. But not Chrissy in Season 5. She was annoying me by season 4. Her phone scenes in Season 5 were the worst parts of each show I thought. Chrissy being dumb got old in Season 4 and the nail was in the coffin come Season 5.

Suzanne Somers hated those phone tag scenes, too. The producers were basically forcing her to run out the clock on her contract and giving her even less than the crumbs they threw her (writing-wise) in Season 4. I agree, the more I watch Season 4 the more disappointed I get at how stupid they made her character. She was quite likeable in the first couple seasons, it's a shame they made her into a clown by Season 5.

If she had kept going, the ultra-dumb act would have gotten real old real fast. But I think if she had remained the same character they wrote in the first 2 seasons, the show could've gone on forever. :D Just my opinion.

If she had kept going, the ultra-dumb act would have gotten real old real fast. But I think if she had remained the same character they wrote in the first 2 seasons, the show could've gone on forever. :D Just my opinion.
I totally agree. The first 2 seasons of the show still remain the best to me.

I agree---John was the stand-out of the show, and he did the most physically demanding parts of it. I still think he didn't deserve to be paid almost double what the women made. If it were $50,000 to their $40 or 45,000, maybe that would have made sense. But there was a a pretty wide gap there. I'm saying the wage gap was sexism, not your point that John "worked" harder, which is valid.

And it definitely was an ensemble cast. Don't believe me? Watch a few episodes of Three's A Crowd. Jack is still pratfalling, clumsy, and goofy, with much less success or humor. Without the ensemble of Joyce and Suzanne/Priscilla, John Ritter's pratfalling is afloat at sea. You can't work in a vacuum.

Yes, the show did get lucky with replacing people. I actually think it was good that Season 5 was sort of "breathing room" to acclimate the audience to not having Suzanne around. Too quick a transition would've been, well, too quick. But although I like Furley, I'm sorry, he just never quite measures up to the Ropers. Same with Priscilla. She's great, and she may have even been a better actress and/or character than Suzanne, but the chemistry between Suzanne, John, and Joyce in early episodes (Season 1-3) is pretty inimitable.

That's what a farce relies upon---how well the moving parts work together, not necessarily how wonderful the individual parts are. As in any show, there is usually one stand-out character, but he or she needs the rest of the machine to work with them to truly shine.Okay I'm glad you explained what you thought the women should have been paid and I can understand why you would think the wage gap was too big. I still think it was appropriate, but I understand your point of view.

And yeah.....I think the show was more of an ensemble show in the early years than in later. Furley doesn't get the same amount of screen time The Ropers did. It's weird watching the later eps how most episodes either feature Larry OR Furley and not both. It really is John carrying the show then just because they're not giving too many other people screen time.

The chemistry of The trio and The Ropers was something that shouldn't have been messed with. They could have spun off the Ropers AFTER Three's Company ended same time as Three's A Crowd. Things seemed a lot less equal after all the cast changes and it really did become about John near the end. But he did have enough talent to keep things funny and keep people laughing.

And it definitely was an ensemble cast. Don't believe me? Watch a few episodes of Three's A Crowd. Jack is still pratfalling, clumsy, and goofy, with much less success or humor. Without the ensemble of Joyce and Suzanne/Priscilla, John Ritter's pratfalling is afloat at sea. You can't work in a vacuum.

I wish "The Ropers" and "Three's A Crowd" were released on DVD.

You can trade for them on trademe.com.

You can trade for them on trademe.com.


what if he has nothing to trade

what if he has nothing to trade
Exactly. What I already have I don't want to trade away anyway.

what if he has nothing to trade

Um, then he doesn't trade. It was a suggestion, not a command.

Not to say that Joyce or Suzanne/Jenilee/Priscilla couldn't have gave the performance John Ritter did in that episode, but the fact is they didn't and he had to bust his a**.I agree...... John is probably one of my favourites from the show!!

John was just incredible in that episode. That has to be one of the funniest episodes in SITCOM history! Below is John dancing. :lol:

:jig:

John was just incredible in that episode. That has to be one of the funniest episodes in SITCOM history! Below is John dancing. :lol:

:jig:


THE BEST EPISODE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THE BEST EPISODE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You mean in sitcom history?

Definitely one of the top episodes of ANY show EVER!

:jig:

You mean in sitcom history?

Definitely one of the top episodes of ANY show EVER!

:jig:

Of the series

You mean in sitcom history?

Definitely one of the top episodes of ANY show EVER!

:jig:


Did you know that Nick@Nite cut that whole dance scene out back in 2002? lol

I was so damm mad and wanted to write them a email to express my frustration:lol:

Did you know that Nick@Nite cut that whole dance scene out back in 2002? lol

I was so damm mad and wanted to write them a email to express my frustration:lol:

But it was minutes long! They had to at least show the beginning.

Anybody know where John learned to dance?

:jig:

But it was minutes long! They had to at least show the beginning.

The dance scene ended on N@N right when Jack kissed the lamp lol

Thats when the dance was just getting started

The dance scene ended on N@N right when Jack kissed the lamp lol

Thats when the dance was just getting started

Yeah, and an absolute disgrace to cut that scene in all scenes in sitcom history basically. Ridiculous.

X-A4h2uDg4I

By request here is the full dance scene for Jack Tripper (John Ritter) performing one the funniest comedic scenes. The version on TV and the ones on YouTube for some reasons cut this in about half. Here is the full scene from Up in the Air Episode aired May 4, 1982 Up in the Air is the twenty-fifth episode of Season 6 of Three's Company, and the 125th overall episode of the series. Written by Shelley Zellman and directed by Dave Powers, it first aired 4 May 1982 on ABC.

John was just incredible in that episode. That has to be one of the funniest episodes in SITCOM history! Below is John dancing. :lol:

:jig:
I would love to know how long it took them to rehearse such a dance sequence. Its hysterical but I still think his dance in Some Of That Jazz is a tad funnier. I would love to have seen the rehearsals for both dances. I have seen each episode hundreds of times and I still laugh out loud at these segments.

Strut with me Mama!

T8J72gYRP7c

-- Uplifting Eps --

"Up in the Air" (Three's Company)
Season 6, Episode 25
Written by: Shelley Zellman
Directed by: Dave Powers


Terri (Priscilla Barnes) convinces Janet (Joyce Dewitt) to take Jack (John Ritter) to a fancy party in order to make another man (Barry Williams) jealous. But the party is on an island and Jack is afraid to fly. So Larry (Richard Kline) gives Jack some tranquillizers for the flight.

At the party, Jack is still loopy from the pills and makes matters worse when he combines it with an energy drink... leading him to dance the night away.

This episode is considered a favorite amongst the Three's Company cast, including Ritter himself.

John was the most talented of the bunch. I know that the show's creation was built around him. However it never seemed like that for the first several seasons. The 3 roommates each had scripts revolve around themselves. Suzzane actually became the biggest star from the series. Back in the mid 70s men on TV always made more than women. So he was unfairly paid more than the girls. If the show was on today there would not have been that salary difference. For example if FRIENDS debuted in 1976, the cast would not have been paid the same. The actress who was originally cast to play Chrissy was a bigger name than John Ritter and her agent wanted big bucks. She claims that was the reason she was cut from the show.
John's pratfalls and dancing were terrific but it did not justify so much larger of a paycheck. No series could get away with that today unless truly you were a famous comedian like Roseanne and a show was built around you. John was known but his work was sketchy and unknown to most when Threes Company debuted. Its so unfair to show a brilliant dance in season 6 and say this is why he always deserved so much money. Just remember a funny stunt guy cant be funny by himself. He needs others to interrupt him and maneuver with him. That dance sequence in season 6 was truly brilliant but the other actors made it happen. It would have been dead boring with John doing it by himself.

John was the most talented of the bunch. I know that the show's creation was built around him. However it never seemed like that for the first several seasons. The 3 roommates each had scripts revolve around themselves. Suzzane actually became the biggest star from the series. Back in the mid 70s men on TV always made more than women. So he was unfairly paid more than the girls. If the show was on today there would not have been that salary difference. For example if FRIENDS debuted in 1976, the cast would not have been paid the same. The actress who was originally cast to play Chrissy was a bigger name than John Ritter and her agent wanted big bucks. She claims that was the reason she was cut from the show.
John's pratfalls and dancing were terrific but it did not justify so much larger of a paycheck. No series could get away with that today unless truly you were a famous comedian like Roseanne and a show was built around you. John was known but his work was sketchy and unknown to most when Threes Company debuted. Its so unfair to show a brilliant dance in season 6 and say this is why he always deserved so much money. Just remember a funny stunt guy cant be funny by himself. He needs others to interrupt him and maneuver with him. That dance sequence in season 6 was truly brilliant but the other actors made it happen. It would have been dead boring with John doing it by himself.

And Pluto cuts out the full dance scene

John was the most talented of the bunch. I know that the show's creation was built around him. However it never seemed like that for the first several seasons. The 3 roommates each had scripts revolve around themselves. Suzzane actually became the biggest star from the series. Back in the mid 70s men on TV always made more than women. So he was unfairly paid more than the girls. If the show was on today there would not have been that salary difference. For example if FRIENDS debuted in 1976, the cast would not have been paid the same. The actress who was originally cast to play Chrissy was a bigger name than John Ritter and her agent wanted big bucks. She claims that was the reason she was cut from the show.
John's pratfalls and dancing were terrific but it did not justify so much larger of a paycheck. No series could get away with that today unless truly you were a famous comedian like Roseanne and a show was built around you. John was known but his work was sketchy and unknown to most when Threes Company debuted. Its so unfair to show a brilliant dance in season 6 and say this is why he always deserved so much money. Just remember a funny stunt guy cant be funny by himself. He needs others to interrupt him and maneuver with him. That dance sequence in season 6 was truly brilliant but the other actors made it happen. It would have been dead boring with John doing it by himself.

A couple of points:

1. John Ritter did more drama than comedy before TC. With TC being a light, often silly show, you don't think of John in terms of him being a good actor. He it thought of more of being good at physical comedy.

2. Who was originally scheduled to play Chrissy? I never heard of her, but I did see John guesting of several TV shows before TC.

A couple of points:

1. John Ritter did more drama than comedy before TC. With TC being a light, often silly show, you don't think of John in terms of him being a good actor. He it thought of more of being good at physical comedy.

2. Who was originally scheduled to play Chrissy? I never heard of her, but I did see John guesting of several TV shows before TC.
Susan Lanier was the second Chrissy and was cast. In the ending of Threes Company with the roommates feeding the seagulls its Susan and not Suzanne. They never cut that out and few would ever know it was not Suzanne Sommers. In this interview she describes getting cast on Threes Company. She speculates her agent ruined it for her for asking for so much money. She was a bigger TV star than Ritter and DeWitt and had way more TV credits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm6BuHK45yM

Susan Lanier was the second Chrissy and was cast. In the ending of Threes Company with the roommates feeding the seagulls its Susan and not Suzanne. They never cut that out and few would ever know it was not Suzanne Sommers. In this interview she describes getting cast on Threes Company. She speculates her agent ruined it for her for asking for so much money. She was a bigger TV star than Ritter and DeWitt and had way more TV credits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm6BuHK45yM

I havent seen those closing credits in over 30 years because it was never shown on cable or digital tv

I havent seen those closing credits in over 30 years because it was never shown on cable or digital tv
They show them on Antenna TV and Logo TV at the end of the first season.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_5ST68nlpI

They show them on Antenna TV and Logo TV at the end of the first season.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_5ST68nlpI

All these years and never paid that any attention

Susan’s most famous role is Brenda Carter from The Hills Have Eyes from 77.
She still looks great at 77 !

You could have any of the main cast members not appear in an episode. Which actually happened for all except Barnes who was in all her 3 seasons. But without Ritter in an episode the show would suck is my point. Yes he was the star and earned his $.

You could have any of the main cast members not appear in an episode. Which actually happened for all except Barnes who was in all her 3 seasons. But without Ritter in an episode the show would suck is my point. Yes he was the star and earned his $.
I dont disagree but that is easy to happen when the show is built around you especially in the later seasons. The episode Janet was out, her role was so pivotal that they had to bring in Jack's girlfriend to do her lines. Suzanne's absences were spontaneous and unplanned so I dont think its fair to call both Joyce's and Suzanne's missing an episode as if they were written out. They were caused by contract disputes. Even Carol O'Connor had a contract dispute and missed episodes. Red Foxx missed episodes on his show because of contract disputes. Those shows went on. I suppose if John had a contract dispute Threes Company would have rolled on without him too.
The show was created and intended Jack to be the star. However the first 3 seasons, they all shared the limelight equally and it was Suzanne that became the biggest star. The episodes would rotate the scripts who would be the focus of the show. Even the Ropers had episodes where they were the main focus. The network may have intended John to be the star but that all was lost in the brilliance of the show. When the show began to lose steam with all the replacements, the scripts were then changed to make Jack the center character. I think the show suffered because of it. When Janet and Terri would always say in unison "Jaaaaaack!" Or "Oh Jack!" drove me nuts. Having said all that, I dont dispute John was the biggest talent on the show. But a comic needs supporting characters to shine.

There is a difference to being a central character and being the ENTIRE show.
By the end of Three's Company's run, Jack became the entire show.

I do firmly believe that Jack's overexposure hurt John Ritter's career post TC. His shows post TC didn't do well. By the way TC ended, viewers didn't care as much to see a show with John in it.

I forgot that both Archie and Sanford also had disputes and missed a few episodes. Their shows went on.

I dont disagree but that is easy to happen when the show is built around you especially in the later seasons. The episode Janet was out, her role was so pivotal that they had to bring in Jack's girlfriend to do her lines. Suzanne's absences were spontaneous and unplanned so I dont think its fair to call both Joyce's and Suzanne's missing an episode as if they were written out. They were caused by contract disputes. Even Carol O'Connor had a contract dispute and missed episodes. Red Foxx missed episodes on his show because of contract disputes. Those shows went on. I suppose if John had a contract dispute Threes Company would have rolled on without him too.
The show was created and intended Jack to be the star. However the first 3 seasons, they all shared the limelight equally and it was Suzanne that became the biggest star. The episodes would rotate the scripts who would be the focus of the show. Even the Ropers had episodes where they were the main focus. The network may have intended John to be the star but that all was lost in the brilliance of the show. When the show began to lose steam with all the replacements, the scripts were then changed to make Jack the center character. I think the show suffered because of it. When Janet and Terri would always say in unison "Jaaaaaack!" Or "Oh Jack!" drove me nuts. Having said all that, I dont dispute John was the biggest talent on the show. But a comic needs supporting characters to shine.

I respectfully disagree. Simply put in my opinion show watchers tuned in for Ritter I’m more than comfortable in saying, though Chrissy had her following, the show was John Ritter. Yes there were other components, Ritter was the one that stirred the drink.

dA_g3tY-wx8

Yes, I have the funniest Three's Company clips. Get ready to laugh out loud with the most hilarious Three's Company episode EVER! In this video, I'm sharing IMDb's favorite episode of the classic sitcom that had me in stitches from start to finish. From Jack's silly antics to Janet's sassy comebacks, and a classic tv cameo, this episode has it all! So sit back, relax, and enjoy the funniest Three's Company episode that will leave you smiling long after the credits roll.