Biggest "what if" to come from "Three's Company" - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

TMC · 08-07-2017, 08:47 PM

They somehow carved a successful show with all of the drama, but what if:

*Suzanne Somers had been smarter/less greedy about her negotiation? On the other side of the coin, would a better relationship with the producers and better salary have kept the actors on for a longer run?

*They had kept Jennilee Harrison and Norman Fell/Audra Lindley as recurring characters in later seasons?

*They had given more for Priscilla Barnes to do in the late seasons?

*They had paired John with an actress he had more chemistry with for the Three's a Crowd spin-off? What if it had been for instance, Anne Scheeden or Joanna Kerns in Three's A Crowd?

*They had spun-off Richard Kline to his own show?

*Joyce DeWitt had been more willing to do other TV after the show?

Anna Karenina · 08-07-2017, 09:22 PM

What if they paired Joyce with John in the spin off?

Alex Cooper · 08-07-2017, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMC

They somehow carved a successful show with all of the drama, but what if:

*Suzanne Somers had been smarter/less greedy about her negotiation? On the other side of the coin, would a better relationship with the producers and better salary have kept the actors on for a longer run?

*They had kept Jennilee Harrison and Norman Fell/Audra Lindley as recurring characters in later seasons?

*They had given more for Priscilla Barnes to do in the late seasons?

*They had paired John with an actress he had more chemistry with for the Three's a Crowd spin-off? What if it had been for instance, Anne Scheeden or Joanna Kerns in Three's A Crowd?

*They had spun-off Richard Kline to his own show?

*Joyce DeWitt had been more willing to do other TV after the show?

I wish Jenilee had stayed on as a recurring character for seasons 7 and 8. I know she wasn't the best actor in the world, but I had a major crush on her in my youth, and Cindy was a great physical foil for Jack.

It would have been cool if the Ropers bought back the building from Furley's brother, but kept Furley as the live-in landlord and super. Then they could have made some frequent guest appearances, whilst keeping Don Knotts as a regular.

I don't know if Larry could have carried his own show, but Jack definitely needed a more plausible love interest for the spin-off.

Alex Cooper · 08-07-2017, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anna Karenina

What if they paired Joyce with John in the spin off?

Or Suzanne? According to the 3C TV biopic, she tried to come back in the eleventh hour as the one Jack hooks up with. Her minister father would have made a logical "third" for the "Three's a Crowd."

JackJanetChrissy · 08-08-2017, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Cooper

Or Suzanne? According to the 3C TV biopic, she tried to come back in the eleventh hour as the one Jack hooks up with. Her minister father would have made a logical "third" for the "Three's a Crowd."

I never thought about Chrissy's father, but yeah, that would've been a perfect set-up!

I wish they had kept Jenilee Harrison on as Cindy, too.

I think if Suzanne had stayed on the show would not have lasted as long as it did. Some shake-up would have been necessary to keep it fresh.

Another what-if: What if Lana had stayed on and given a more meaty role? Would she have eventually settled for Larry?

SitcomsHeydayfan · 03-08-2019, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Cooper

Or Suzanne? According to the 3C TV biopic, she tried to come back in the eleventh hour as the one Jack hooks up with. Her minister father would have made a logical "third" for the "Three's a Crowd."

That was delusional on her part. With all the bad blood she created with her threats for more money the producers just LAUGHED her and her husband out of the office!

SitcomsHeydayfan · 03-08-2019, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anna Karenina

What if they paired Joyce with John in the spin off?

This is what the fans wanted but I would've preferred a 9th season of TC but they needed to hire new writers due to lack of new ideas.

cbikle · 03-15-2019, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SitcomsHeydayfan

This is what the fans wanted but I would've preferred a 9th season of TC but they needed to hire new writers due to lack of new ideas.

I think the writers ran out of ideas after season 1.

The strength of this show was ABSOLUTELY in the cast.

The writers were uninspired, lazy clock-punchers.

JackJanetChrissy · 03-15-2019, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbikle

I think the writers ran out of ideas after season 1.

The strength of this show was ABSOLUTELY in the cast.

The writers were uninspired, lazy clock-punchers.

The funny thing about this comment is that many Season 1-3 episodes were adapted from the original Man About the House series.

I disagree the writers were lazy clock-punchers. That's the point of farce. It's meant to seem ridiculous but takes a lot of work to bring together. Agree with you about the cast, though.

SitcomsHeydayfan · 03-16-2019, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbikle

I think the writers ran out of ideas after season 1.

The strength of this show was ABSOLUTELY in the cast.

The writers were uninspired, lazy clock-punchers.

That's why you needed new writers for a Season 9 that never happened!

cbikle · 03-16-2019, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackJanetChrissy

The funny thing about this comment is that many Season 1-3 episodes were adapted from the original Man About the House series.

I disagree the writers were lazy clock-punchers. That's the point of farce. It's meant to seem ridiculous but takes a lot of work to bring together. Agree with you about the cast, though.

Maybe, but I'm more inclined to attribute that to the cast and director, having to work overtime to make up for a weak script.

I suspect that a lot of stuff that WORKED like Mr. Roper's breaking-the-4th wall smile/mugging to the camera, was a result of experimentation/improv/boredom with the material they had to work with.

JackJanetChrissy · 03-16-2019, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbikle

Maybe, but I'm more inclined to attribute that to the cast and director, having to work overtime to make up for a weak script.

I suspect that a lot of stuff that WORKED like Mr. Roper's breaking-the-4th wall smile/mugging to the camera, was a result of experimentation/improv/boredom with the material they had to work with.

I guess it comes down to whether you enjoy farce or not. If someone doesn't care for the format then the writing will always look stupid. It's true that most of the plots of TC could be solved in 30 seconds by one character asking two clarifying questions, but that's farce.

I agree that the form relies on the physical talent of the actors but there is definitely a method to writing the scripts that allows the actors to shine that way.

In the later seasons the writing was weaker because 1) too much downtime in the episode and 2) character types were not clearly defined, like with Terri. Both of those reasons have to do with not conforming to the formula of farce as tightly as earlier seasons.

cbikle · 04-20-2019, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anna Karenina

What if they paired Joyce with John in the spin off?

If they'd done that, there would've been no need to change anything about the show other than the title and kicking Terri out of the apartment.

More likely, it'd be some kind of situation where Jack & Janet pursue (separate ?) opportunities in a new locale, with a new, different cast.

Also, maybe Joyce DeWitt wanted a break from TV at this point ?

SitcomsHeydayfan · 04-20-2019, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbikle

If they'd done that, there would've been no need to change anything about the show other than the title and kicking Terri out of the apartment.

More likely, it'd be some kind of situation where Jack & Janet pursue (separate ?) opportunities in a new locale, with a new, different cast.

Also, maybe Joyce DeWitt wanted a break from TV at this point ?

No she didn't. She was pissed off that she was written out of Three's a Crowd.

Duster76 · 04-20-2019, 10:51 PM

This is an interesting discussion, I have a slightly different take on some of this. Let's take a look at 2017 what if list:

•*Suzanne Somers had been smarter/less greedy about her negotiation? On the other side of the coin, would a better relationship with the producers and better salary have kept the actors on for a longer run?

*They had kept Jennilee Harrison and Norman Fell/Audra Lindley as recurring characters in later seasons?

*They had given more for Priscilla Barnes to do in the late seasons?

*They had paired John with an actress he had more chemistry with for the Three's a Crowd spin-off? What if it had been for instance, Anne Scheeden or Joanna Kerns in Three's A Crowd?

*They had spun-off Richard Kline to his own show?

*Joyce DeWitt had been more willing to do other TV after the show?

Bullets 1-3 all have a common thread, Somers leaving, Harrison's character being phased out and the Ropers not returning, and Barnes not having enough to do, all these things benefitted one person, John Ritter. Somers and her husband, are shrewd business people who have marketed the Somers persona brilliantly, they realized Ritter would steal the show and they made a stand. Make no mistake about it, that was a power struggle between Ritter and Somers, Ritter prevailed, he stayed, she left. One or the other was not going to stay with the show. Let's talk about the Roper's, Fell wanted a stipulation put in his contract that he could return to Three's Company if The Ropers failed. The producers refused so there was going back. Fell and Lindley worked great together, and there characters needed screen time, Ritter clearly wanted the focus of that series on his character and wasn't looking to share. Goodbye Ropers. I liked Harrison, I thought she was a good replacement for Somers, but guess what, the producers indicated they wanted a more polished actress in the role of the third roommate. Doesn't seem to make much sense, Harrison did a good job. Again we see a benefit for Ritter, Harrison is placed to the side and Barnes is added as basically a blond version of Janet. Terri and Janet can be used interchangeably, together they can't do much in the way of getting laughs or carrying scenes without Jack being present.

Now let's move to bullet 4, again look at the answer to the first three bullets, Ritter wanted the attention on his character, he wasn't looking for a strong female lead. There can be no doubt about this, obviously the female lead in Three's a Crowd should have received the most careful of considerations, respectfully, how do you wind up casting Mary Cadorette in such an important part.

Bullet 5 answer, Richard Kline was pitched for a spin off series (this was the original incarnation of Three's a Crowd), but the network nixed it.

Bullet 6, I loved Joyce DeWitt in Three's Company, I don't think she had good career management and that's show biz, talent is chewed up and spit out every day.

08-07-2017, 08:47 PM	#1
TMC Member Forum Idol Join Date: Jan 09, 2001 Posts: 125,301	Biggest "what if" to come from "Three's Company" They somehow carved a successful show with all of the drama, but what if: Suzanne Somers had been smarter/less greedy about her negotiation? On the other side of the coin, would a better relationship with the producers and better salary have kept the actors on for a longer run? They had kept Jennilee Harrison and Norman Fell/Audra Lindley as recurring characters in later seasons? They had given more for Priscilla Barnes to do in the late seasons? They had paired John with an actress he had more chemistry with for the Three's a Crowd spin-off? What if it had been for instance, Anne Scheeden or Joanna Kerns in Three's A Crowd? They had spun-off Richard Kline to his own show? Joyce DeWitt had been more willing to do other TV after the show?

08-07-2017, 09:22 PM	#2
Anna Karenina Member Forum Fanatic Join Date: Nov 09, 2006 Posts: 10,086	What if they paired Joyce with John in the spin off?

04-20-2019, 10:51 PM	#15
Duster76 Member Senior Member Join Date: Mar 01, 2008 Location: New jersey Posts: 1,641	This is an interesting discussion, I have a slightly different take on some of this. Let's take a look at 2017 what if list: •Suzanne Somers had been smarter/less greedy about her negotiation? On the other side of the coin, would a better relationship with the producers and better salary have kept the actors on for a longer run? They had kept Jennilee Harrison and Norman Fell/Audra Lindley as recurring characters in later seasons? They had given more for Priscilla Barnes to do in the late seasons? They had paired John with an actress he had more chemistry with for the Three's a Crowd spin-off? What if it had been for instance, Anne Scheeden or Joanna Kerns in Three's A Crowd? They had spun-off Richard Kline to his own show? Joyce DeWitt had been more willing to do other TV after the show? Bullets 1-3 all have a common thread, Somers leaving, Harrison's character being phased out and the Ropers not returning, and Barnes not having enough to do, all these things benefitted one person, John Ritter. Somers and her husband, are shrewd business people who have marketed the Somers persona brilliantly, they realized Ritter would steal the show and they made a stand. Make no mistake about it, that was a power struggle between Ritter and Somers, Ritter prevailed, he stayed, she left. One or the other was not going to stay with the show. Let's talk about the Roper's, Fell wanted a stipulation put in his contract that he could return to Three's Company if The Ropers failed. The producers refused so there was going back. Fell and Lindley worked great together, and there characters needed screen time, Ritter clearly wanted the focus of that series on his character and wasn't looking to share. Goodbye Ropers. I liked Harrison, I thought she was a good replacement for Somers, but guess what, the producers indicated they wanted a more polished actress in the role of the third roommate. Doesn't seem to make much sense, Harrison did a good job. Again we see a benefit for Ritter, Harrison is placed to the side and Barnes is added as basically a blond version of Janet. Terri and Janet can be used interchangeably, together they can't do much in the way of getting laughs or carrying scenes without Jack being present. Now let's move to bullet 4, again look at the answer to the first three bullets, Ritter wanted the attention on his character, he wasn't looking for a strong female lead. There can be no doubt about this, obviously the female lead in Three's a Crowd should have received the most careful of considerations, respectfully, how do you wind up casting Mary Cadorette in such an important part. Bullet 5 answer, Richard Kline was pitched for a spin off series (this was the original incarnation of Three's a Crowd), but the network nixed it. Bullet 6, I loved Joyce DeWitt in Three's Company, I don't think she had good career management and that's show biz, talent is chewed up and spit out every day.