"Up In The Air" is why John Ritter was paid more than the other cast members.

[JSP]

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.

[JackJanetChrissy]

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.

[JSP]

Originally Posted by JackJanetChrissy

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.

[Mr. Television]

Originally Posted by JSP

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.

[JSP]

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.

[TVFactFan]

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

[Mace Dolex]

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.

[JSP]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

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.

[JSP]

Originally Posted by Mace Dolex

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.

[JackJanetChrissy]

Originally Posted by JSP

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.

[JackJanetChrissy]

Originally Posted by JSP

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. Just my opinion.

[JSP]

Originally Posted by JackJanetChrissy

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. Just my opinion.

I totally agree. The first 2 seasons of the show still remain the best to me.

[JSP]

Originally Posted by JackJanetChrissy

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.

[JSP]

Originally Posted by JackJanetChrissy

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.

[JackJanetChrissy]

You can trade for them on trademe.com.