Well Sommer's and her husband claim that the producers made the decision because they were sexist. They said it was some sort of retaliation for some other female tv stars, IIRC Penny Marshall and Cindy Williams, getting a huge deal. She wanted $150,000 per episode like Ritter (she was on $30K) and 10% of the profits of the show. There were also favoured nation type clauses in the contracts so if she got an increase, Ritter and DeWitt would've had to receive pay increases as well. It's also likely that Ritters clause would state that not only would he need to have an increase but it would need to be at least X% above the other highest deal. The producers really had no choice but to say no IMO. If they agreed to pay her that much, then DeWitt needs a pay increase as does Ritter. She was certainly a very popular character but I think Sommers and her husband overplayed their hands, likely because they felt she was the real star of the show. Also, her husband wanted to create Chrissy branded merchandise. He mentioned it in an interview he did with Bob Lefsetz (which is actually a very interesting podcast episode, fascinating guy and story). I'm not sure if that factored into any negotiations though. I don't recall reading the either Ritter or DeWitt backed up her claims of sexism. What other co-stars commented on the situation? It's a shame that it happened because the three of them had great chemistry together.
They got a raw deal for sure. Norman Fell was against the idea as he didn't think it would work and he was right. I'm sure if the network wanted to, they could've brought them back regardless of any deadline.
She was negotiating for an increase before syndication though, so syndication profits didn't really enter into it at the time. She wanted to go from $30K with no profit participation to $150K plus 10%. She was asking for quite a lot and it probably would've killed the show if the others banded together with her, at the time, to get that increase, because DeWitt would've had to get that increase too (I think she had a similar favoured nations clause). I don't think any of them, including Sommers and her husband were thinking of syndication at the time of the negotiations. Also, depending on which article, I think Ritter already had participation.
DeWitt did get overshadowed in that show, even after Sommers left, but I think she did have more of a chance to shine post season 4.
Naw, it was just not funny to me. It was an over-the-top show where people yelled a lot -- just no depth to it. Mary Tyler Moore, Bob Newhart, All in the Family, the Norman Lear shows... those were all fine. There's also shows I didn't care for that were actually funny, like Sanford & Son, Golden Girls, and so on. The Garry Marshall comedies were what I would call "innocuous but not that funny," but they at least had a high level of craftsmanship and I could respect that. In history, the kinds of comedies I liked would be stuff like I Love Lucy, Seinfeld, Fawlty Towers, Monty Python, SCTV, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and Larry Sanders. Even such stalwarts as Cheers and Friends were, at their core, very funny shows though I was so-so about them. I don't get that from Three's Company, which just felt kinda cheap and sleazy to me, like the writers just threw a lotta stuff at the wall. Move over, I'm sitting in that same boat!
The low-brow comedy (if one is in the mood for it), the physical comedy, and Ritter-charm have all held up. The sex- and gay-jokes have not aged well. I used to watch this show all the time when I was 7 or 8 years old and that now seems... weirdly inappropriate.
What I find really funny about the show is the premise that two girls sharing an apartment with one guy was so shocking that the guy would have to pretend to be gay or they would never be allowed to live in that apartment and it would've been legal to do just that. I was only a young teen around that time, but for those who were older in the late 70's early 80's, was it really that bad back then? Even weirder was grown women sharing a room for 8 years. Rents must have been really really awful in Santa Monica.
Even more absurd was the premise of Bosom Buddies: Two men having to dress up as women to live in an apartment building for women only? Come on!
Somers has stated that she and Hamel were thinking of syndication at the time, as they started their negotiations while the producers were selling the show to local stations. Their initial position was 150K per episode and 10% of the profits, which essentially was the syndication run. Like many shows at the time, Three’s Company was deficit financed for its original network run. So there were no profits without a syndication run. Somers’ initial ask would have made continued financing of the show very difficult, but she maintains it was a simply a starting point in the negotiations. The producers countered with a 5K per week raise, with no profit points. Ritter did not have profit points in the main series. The producers could have given the lead actors each a small profit percentage instead of huge raises. That’s what happened with Penny Marshall and Cindy Williams. But again, Somers negotiated alone - and poorly. Check out Chris Mann’s “Come and Knock On Our Door” book about this history of the show; it’s detailed about Somers’ negotiation and departure and features interviews with most of the principles. It seems pretty balanced.
I still enjoy the show. I prefer the later seasons, only because of nostalgia - I started watching the show during the Barnes years. I was too young for the Somers years. I really like the Jenilee Harrison episodes. I don't think she gets enough credit. She was in a difficult position, replacing a beloved character during a tumultuous time in the show's run. Her knack for physical comedy was terrific and I love the scenes with her and John Ritter because they did slapstick very well together. Physical comedy is not easy and I thought Harrison rose to the challenge. I feel bad when I watch her final episodes as she's being phased out. It must have been difficult but she obviously has no hard feelings since she regularly attends reunions with Barnes and DeWitt and she went on to do Dallas following Three's Company. As for Somers, she definitely overplayed her hand. What she was asking for was ridiculous and they definitely made an example out of her. However, if that happened today, Somers would definitely have benefitted from social media and the push for equal pay (look at the Michelle Williams incident).
What Bruce Somers (Suzanne's director/son) told me years later is that she asked for a lot in the initial discussions, but would've been willing to settle for a lot less. Rather than talk about the settlement, the producers publicized the $150K/week thing, when the truth is she would've been ecstatic to get double her current salary at $60K. And $60K an episode was not out of line for a hit sitcom in those days. The bad blood happened because she didn't tell the other cast members she planned to ask for a huge raise, and the tension was bad enough that they essentially wrote her out of the show as a cameo appearance for weeks until her contract was up. In hindsight, the producers should have given the cast a Friends deal and just had a most-favored nations clause for all of them, so that the three principles (and perhaps Norman Fell) should've all gotten the same salary or a percentage of the top amount. But 40 years ago in 1980, that was a novel concept.
the Phone Call Episodes..."Hi Jack! Im still at my cousins house.." i was so confused as a kid. Whats going on??? I think Newhart did it too for a season, a few shows would be all about Emily teaching and Bob would call in for a bit. i think that was agreed on though/
When you think about it, the premise wasn't over the top at all. They just added a little something extra to keep the landlord happy, and they played up a sexual angle to keep an (most likely a young horny male) audience coming back for more. I just didn't like the Garry Marshall shows. Happy Days, Laverne & Shirley, and all the spin-offs they produced, they weren't even amusing to me. I barely watched them. When they came on, I turned the channel or left to do something else. Now, Sherwood Schwartz put out Gilligan's Island, one of the stupidest, unbelievable shows in television history, but as outlandish as it was, it was funny. And no one topped Norman Lear, Carrol Burnett, and Desilu, IMO. But, like I said, Three's Company could have me rolling on the floor laughing in pain. Why? John Ritter's timing and execution. Even Lucille Ball thought so. But, then my tastes also include the late 70s Saturday Night Live, with all it's offensive, sleazy crudeness. If they were to put that era of SNL on the air today, NBC would probably lose its license! I find all of those except I Love Lucy as exciting as a dead fly. I guess that means we can't hang out and watch TV. TV needs more of that today. Everyone's too serious. What a terrible show!^ Fantasy Island was better!
Yes, very inappropriate today, as is anything made in the past. The culture changes and evolves. But, it is kind of hard to reject your past. I mean, how many of us still enjoy Frank Zappa or Cheech & Chong albums? How many of us didn't throw out our Bill Cosby records? We can enjoy, say, Gilligan's Island, but remember how offensive it was/is to have Ginger and Mary-Ann do all the cooking and cleaning. We can like Dennis The Menace and Leave It To Beaver but never forget how offensive it was to have the women always staying at home cooking, cleaning, and trying to look beautiful for their husbands. Some can like Good Times but not like the racial caricatures and stereotypes. Some can still laugh at Buck Henry on SNL and be very offended and hurt by him taking pictures of supposed little girls sitting on glass tables in a skit, or Dan Akroyd calling Jane Curtain an "ignorant slut". People have their own thresholds on what they will tolerate. And, what about those old Maxwell House coffee commercials from the 60s where the husband berates his wife for not making a good cup of coffee? And, there was a time when the majority of Americans thought Amos & Andy were funny, too. Perhaps the answer is to try to keep things in perspective when dealing with past entertainment. And, what we choose to deal with reflect on our personalities? I don't know the answer, but we all have a duty to ourselves to find where we are comfortable.
I worked on all the Life with Lucy shows, and Lucy picked John Ritter to star with her in one of the first episodes. It was painful and sad. No question, Ritter was a talented guy and very charming, plus was a good actor -- and not just comedic. I worked on a 1985 dramatic TV movie he did, Letting Go, and Ritter turned in a credible performance. Naw, I'm looking for honest laughs and not something forced, corny, and heavy-handed, which is how I look at Three's Company. I'm all for pratfalls and honest laughs -- I mentioned Lucy and Honeymooners before -- but there's a sleazebucket level that kind of makes me wince. I like a ton of R-rated sitcoms that are really wild and crazy, so it's not a prudish thing at all. The Python films, Airplane, Animal House, The Jerk, all those films are really and truly funny but don't stoop to that kind of cheap level. And most of those were really successful, critically and financially. I get that there are different rules for TV and film, but Three's Company just seems cheap and banal to me. I have to admit, there's an awful lot of 1980s and 1990s shows that fall into the same category: Two Broke Girls is frequently cited as one of the worst shows in recent years, and that really was a very, very bad show. I'd point to something relatively recent like Big Bang Theory as a show that was really funny in a classic sense, plus it had the benefit of a great cast with terrific chemistry, which is something you can't fake.
I like the era with John, Joyce, Suzanne, Norman, and Audra, but don’t like the Don Knotts era. I like Don in The Andy Griffith Show, but don’t like him on Three’s Company.
It's certainly a window into young-adult sexual mores in the post-hippy & pre-AIDs era (i.e., "let's get it on!"). The gay jokes are a bit harder to justify, but, as you say, it's also a part of the mainstream view of the time. Then again, that view is probably also most of the mainstream view of today, with the difference being that it can't be expressed today.
I was never into Suzanne Somers, though certainly she played the part to perfection. (I think initially they had cast another actress, as they were concerned Somers was too old. Do I have that right? Anyway, she was over 30 when the show began.) I only saw her episodes in repeats, anyway, as that was before my time. From what I remember (also in repeats), Jenilee Harrison's turn was fine, but the feeling there was that she was more of a temporary substitute. Since she got replaced pretty quickly, it seems like the producers didn't think she was ever suitable for the long haul. Priscilla Barnes is the only roommate I remember from real-time when I was a little kid. (The show ended when I was barely 8.) She made an impression on my budding manhood.
If I remember correctly, Chrissy may have been in the secretarial typing pool... Though I own the series on DVD, it's been awhile since I watched any of the episodes, but I'm thinking she may have been promoted to some guy's personal assistant, although that job may have feel by the wayside, because I'm thinking he wanted her for hanky-panky and she wouldn't go along with it. But regardless, I'm certain Chrissy's job was something secretarial, at least early on. And you beat me to saying that the flower shop probably didn't pay too much, so I could see Janet needing a room-mate. And Jack was a cooking student early on, just picking up quick cash gigs for money, at least until he got steadier work at a restaurant (and eventually opening Jack's Bistro, I think?).
I don't watch "Two Broke Girls" all that often, but I liked it when I saw it. Not everything has to be a "family" sitcom.
Social media would have been brutal with that and with Valerie Harper being replaced on “Valerie” for similar reasons.
