I know people say Janet was mean to Mr. Furley in "Janet Wigs Out," but I just watched Season 8's "Hearing is Believing," and when Mr. Furley approaches Janet in the Regal Beagle, she tells him to go away and leave her alone over and over again in a rather mean tone of voice. Seems even meaner since she doesn't have a blonde wig "making" her do it.

What are the circumstances of this episode? I don't know what you're talking about. :confused:

I know people say Janet was mean to Mr. Furley in "Janet Wigs Out," but I just watched Season 8's "Hearing is Believing," and when Mr. Furley approaches Janet in the Regal Beagle, she tells him to go away and leave her alone over and over again in a rather mean tone of voice. Seems even meaner since she doesn't have a blonde wig "making" her do it.
Yeah, that's one of those episodes where Janet was just full-on goofy. It got a chance for Joyce to show her comedic side, but it did degrade the Janet character, who used to seem so level-headed in the Chrissy days.

What are the circumstances of this episode? I don't know what you're talking about. :confused:


Sorry about that...."Hearing is Believing" is the episode where Jack is dating a sex therapist but Janet thinks his gf is a prostitute. Janet's father comes to visit and Janet wants the woman gone. Janet goes to the Regal Beagle to eat her feelings with french fries, and that's when Mr. Furley walks in and the first thing she tells him is to "Go Away."

JSP, I agree---in this episode, especially, we see Janet taking on Chrissy characteristics. She overeats when she feels bad (which Chrissy did), makes the big eyes and crazy expressions (like Chrissy) and is generally goofy. I think by Season 8 the writers were confused, forgetful, and out of ideas.

Sorry about that...."Hearing is Believing" is the episode where Jack is dating a sex therapist but Janet thinks his gf is a prostitute. Janet's father comes to visit and Janet wants the woman gone. Janet goes to the Regal Beagle to eat her feelings with french fries, and that's when Mr. Furley walks in and the first thing she tells him is to "Go Away."
OK, Janet was very rude to Mr. Furley. I felt bad for him.

and yet just a few months later, both of Janet's parent's weren't at her wedding.

I blame Janet's character as one of the reasons (not the only one) of TC's drastic ratings drop in Season 8.

and yet just a few months later, both of Janet's parent's weren't at her wedding.


Yeah, isn't that weird? There were a lot of ppl who should've been at her wedding. Her sister Jenny, her brother (unnamed), Cindy, Chrissy, "one of her very best friends" Agnes Platt (played by Rita Wilson in "Alias Jack Tripper"), and the Ropers for sure.

Her parents lived in Indiana, so I can see them maybe not coming, but the Ropers especially should have been there because they only lived a few minutes away.

She should've apologized to Furley and DEFINITELY APOLOGIZED to Jack for the abuse she put him through.

She should've apologized to Furley and DEFINITELY APOLOGIZED to Jack for the abuse she put him through.

What did she do to Jack?

Kicked him in the shin (aiming for another body part), pulling him into the kitchen by his fingers, shoving him back out through the kitchen door...I think I missed some other things lol

Kicked him in the shin (aiming for another body part), pulling him into the kitchen by his fingers, shoving him back out through the kitchen door...I think I missed some other things lol

Oh give me a break...Jack and Janet were always throwing each other around---that was part of the hilarity! Nothing mean or nasty or "abusive" was meant by it. What about When Jack got Janet in a headlock and then threw her through the kitchen door in "Coffee, Tea, or Jack"? Or when Jack jerked Janet back down on the couch by her wrist in "Larry Loves Janet"? Or when Jack pulled Chrissy into the kitchen by one of her ponytails??? Or what about pretty much EVERYTHING Cindy did to Jack, lol? I do not know where you are getting this "abuse" stuff. It is ridiculous.

Janet had a right to since Mr. Furely was too old to be hanging around at the beagle. He needed a life and didn't have one

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the real reason she yelled at him.

Janet had a right to since Mr. Furely was too old to be hanging around at the beagle. He needed a life and didn't have one
Mr. Furley had every right to go wherever he wanted to. He wasn't causing any trouble and he wasn't being rude to anyone. Janet was a total b!tch to him for no reason.

Why was Lana so mean to him?

Why was Lana so mean to him?


Because she wasn't attracted to Mr. Furley and he was always being flirtatious

Because she wasn't attracted to Mr. Furley and he was always being flirtatious

That doesn't mean she has to be mean to him though.

That doesn't mean she has to be mean to him though.


Yes it does because if a older person who is not attractive is always flirting, it makes you upset

Yes it does because if a older person who is not attractive is always flirting, it makes you upset

Following your logic, shouldn't Jack have been mean to Lana too? He was very polite to her. And she was way more aggressive than Ralph was.

Following your logic, shouldn't Jack have been mean to Lana too? He was very polite to her. And she was way more aggressive than Ralph was.


That's because jack was somewhat attracted to her but she was just older

That's because jack was somewhat attracted to her but she was just older

It looked to me like Jack was somewhat scared of her, she was kind of like a stalker. :eek:

Why was Lana so mean to him?

Lana was a lady who knew exactly what she wanted and had no patience with people wasting her time. Mr. Furley's constant come-ons annoyed her, and he never got the message to lay off, so of course she was mean to him. The joke was how clueless he was....the meaner she was, the more he was convinced she liked him!

The episode looks to me like they took an abandoned story meant for Chrissy, pulled it back out, and rewrote it for Janet.

The episode looks to me like they took an abandoned story meant for Chrissy, pulled it back out, and rewrote it for Janet.

Yes, Janet does act very Chrissy-like in this episode. Other people on here have noted how much more goofy Janet got after Suzanne/Chrissy left the show. Janet was so level-headed and NORMAL in the first 3 or 4 seasons, but after that she was flying off every other episode doing flighty and exaggerated things.

Yes, Janet does act very Chrissy-like in this episode. Other people on here have noted how much more goofy Janet got after Suzanne/Chrissy left the show. Janet was so level-headed and NORMAL in the first 3 or 4 seasons, but after that she was flying off every other episode doing flighty and exaggerated things.

In this episode, though, Janet said things that seem like only Chrissy would have said, especially when she misread "therapist".That's something Janet just wouldn't do, but it was perfect for Chrissy. Plus, rhe jealousy angle would have worked mich better with Chrissy. I think this a recycled abandoned episode from after SS was fired.

I think this a recycled abandoned episode from after SS was fired.


I kind of doubt that..."Hearing is Believing" was Season 8, three (almost four) years after the whole Suzanne thing. Neal Marlens, the guy who wrote the script for this episode, did not work for the show before Season 8.

I also think that of all the roommates over the years, Janet was definitely the most jealous of Jack. But in this episode Janet wasn't jealous, she was miffed that Jack brought a prostitute (or so she thought) in the house while her father was visiting.

I kind of doubt that..."Hearing is Believing" was Season 8, three (almost four) years after the whole Suzanne thing. Neal Marlens, the guy who wrote the script for this episode, did not work for the show before Season 8.

If the outline was written, it would have become property of the production team. That means they could have used it any time, even four years later, and whoever wrote the screenplay would receive the writing credit. Whoever did the outline would have gotten no credit. There's no rule saying they have to be the same people.

This doesn't really add to the discussion, but Neal Marlens, who wrote this episode, actually went on to be the creator of the TV Show "Growing Pains".

This doesn't really add to the discussion, but Neal Marlens, who wrote this episode, actually went on to be the creator of the TV Show "Growing Pains".

Another one of my favorites!

This doesn't really add to the discussion, but Neal Marlens, who wrote this episode, actually went on to be the creator of the TV Show "Growing Pains".

He also, with his wife, Carol Black, co-created The Wonder Years.

If the outline was written, it would have become property of the production team. That means they could have used it any time, even four years later, and whoever wrote the screenplay would receive the writing credit. Whoever did the outline would have gotten no credit. There's no rule saying they have to be the same people.

Okay, but even if that's true, and who knows if it is, I don't think it makes sense. Janet was acting out of character all the time after Chrissy's exodus. Were "Janet Wigs Out" or "Some of that Jazz" also rewritten Chrissy episodes? The longer the show went, the fewer rules the characters played by. Everyone had their turn at "Chrissy" moments, aka acting airheaded and exaggerated.

I've never heard of the writing staff re-using Chrissy plots or outlines. I think that probably would have been in the tell-all book, since that would be a juicy piece of trivia. I think the production team wanted to erase every trace of Suzanne, honestly.

Okay, but even if that's true, and who knows if it is, I don't think it makes sense. Janet was acting out of character all the time after Chrissy's exodus. Were "Janet Wigs Out" or "Some of that Jazz" also rewritten Chrissy episodes? The longer the show went, the fewer rules the characters played by. Everyone had their turn at "Chrissy" moments, aka acting airheaded and exaggerated.

I've never heard of the writing staff re-using Chrissy plots or outlines. I think that probably would have been in the tell-all book, since that would be a juicy piece of trivia. I think the production team wanted to erase every trace of Suzanne, honestly.

Indeed, John Ritter himself said that as the series entered the later part of its run, the production staff was largely repeating old episodes.

Indeed, John Ritter himself said that as the series entered the later part of its run, the production staff was largely repeating old episodes.

Yes he did, but I guess he didn't notice that there were plot similarities throughout the series. In the Three's Company book, the author lists over twenty plots that were repeated (in different variations) throughout the show. Some were repeated within the same season, even. I don't think that is proof that they took an old outline with Chrissy's characterization and switched it over to Janet.

Also, TerriFan is mistaken about the outline credit/production ownership. The screenwriter's guild prevents that sort of thing from happening. Even if there were old episodes or outlines in a file somewhere, the author of the old outline would have to be credited unless the current episode writer changed the outline, characters, dialog, etc until the final script bore no resemblance to the original outline. In that case, the original "Chrissy" lines could not be used without credit to the original author. So either way the recycled Chrissy script theory doesn't hold up.

Now, do I think that Season 6-8 writers watched old episodes of the show and wrote new episodes based on their impression of the show? Sure. But I don't think they could legally pull out old scripts with Chrissy lines and just copy them over.

Just go with the simplest explanation---the writers were inconsistent with the characters in later seasons. The original cast and crew changed over time and so did the core writers, so inconsistency was bound to happen. Boom. That's all!

Also, TerriFan is mistaken about the outline credit/production ownership. The screenwriter's guild prevents that sort of thing from happening. Even if there were old episodes or outlines in a file somewhere, the author of the old outline would have to be credited unless the current episode writer changed the outline, characters, dialog, etc until the final script bore no resemblance to the original outline. In that case, the original "Chrissy" lines could not be used without credit to the original author. So either way the recycled Chrissy script theory doesn't hold up.

Now, do I think that Season 6-8 writers watched old episodes of the show and wrote new episodes based on their impression of the show? Sure. But I don't think they could legally pull out old scripts with Chrissy lines and just copy them over.

It doesn't sound like you understand what an outline is. The outline is not an actual script, but a synopsis of the script to be written. It has no dialogue, but can include a reference to what the dialogue might be, or include key words and phrases that need to go into the script. If the outline was never turned into a script during SS's stay, it's entirely possible it was recycled.

SAG protects its members, true, but it's lost control of its art since Hitchcock. They don't even have creative control any more. Now, the story is decided by a committee who gives it to one writer for the outline, which is practically already done, then another writer for the script, sent back to the committee who takes out everything (usually) the writer added on his own and changes a few other things for production purposes, then gives it to someone else for "treatment" (better called "rewrite") who doesn't get a credit unless at least half of it is changed. Then, back to committee, until they have it as profitable and sellable as possible. Meanwhile, the writer who originally pitched the idea has no clue this is even that idea because it's been changed so much. And not one writer is in that committee; it's usually producers, directors, and network execs. That goes along exactly with what you said it would take to remove his name from the credits. So, yes, it's entirely possible it was found and used.

Now, would a writer admit to stealing an outline from four years earlier? No way. There are certain copyright issues involved, and every writer in Hollywood knows what they are.

Then, back to committee, until they have it as profitable and sellable as possible. Meanwhile, the writer who originally pitched the idea has no clue this is even that idea because it's been changed so much.

Ha ha, I think you just defeated your own argument. I am aware that shows are written "by committee," with the main writer getting credit. But if, by your own statement above, the original outline was changed beyond recognition---beyond the recognition of the original outline author, even!---then how could the episode "Hearing is Believing" be so recognizable as an outline from the Chrissy years? Doesn't make sense.


Now, would a writer admit to stealing an outline from four years earlier? No way. There are certain copyright issues involved, and every writer in Hollywood knows what they are.

Again, you just refuted your own argument and confirmed my point. There are copyright and attribution issues. Why would a writer/production company subject themselves to such liability?

SAG protects its members, true, but it's lost control of its art since Hitchcock. They don't even have creative control any more.

This is conspiracy theory nonsense. Even though shows are written by committee, there are still clear rules about attribution. The Writers Guild of America is the final arbiter of credit. If an outline from the Chrissy years was still as recognizable as you claim "Hearing is Believing" is, the original outliner (yes, the synopsis of the script) would be entitled to a "story by" credit.

Lastly, here is John Ritter talking about "character truth" on the show. Spoiler: there was none. So everyone took turns acting Chrissy-like by Season 8.

212414

Honestly I think it's ridiculous that we're getting into an argument about this minor detail. Neither of us can prove anything, although the likelihood of my argument is stronger as it has more evidence behind it. But let's just enjoy the show. No sense in Three's Company fans going at each other.