Why Death?
Although I like what ended up happening on the show, I will always wonder: why did they kill off Paul instead of recasting him? Could no one play the role the same way or would they find recasting to be disrespectful?
shareI think it would've been hard on the cast members to just start working with another actor like nothing happened. It was probably better to work Ritter's death into the script, than continue with another actor.
shareI think it would have just been wrong. John was such an amazing comedy actor and NO ONE no matter how talented they are, could of taken over the role of Paul. I think it would of also been way too hard for the cast/crew.
shareI agree with the above statement. If Paul had died during the summer before filming season 2 then I could possibly see recasting but he collapsed during the filming of an episode and it was huge news when he did die. Because it was such big news, you just can't pretend that it didn't happen.
shareWhy death? Because it's a part of life. But to answer your question. Why no recast? Because if you've seen any of John Ritter's work (not just "Three's Company") you'd know how brilliant he was. His characters radiated a warmth and charm not found in many actors. John Ritter was the star of the show (first-billed) for a reason. He could not be replaced. They should've finished out the second season in dealing with Paul's death, but not renewed it for a third season. The ratings dropped for a reason.
Why did "Three's Company" last after Suzanne Somers was fired, but "8 Simple Rules For Dating My Teenage Daughter" was canceled after John's death? (People still tuned in for the remainder of season two to see how Paul's death would be resolved, and they were done, therefore, when it was renewed for a third season it bombed and was canceled). Because when Ritter starred in a show he was the lead (part of how strongly he commanded a peformance, he was better as a lead), and the warmth, charm and humor with which he played his characters, he etched a mark in the hearts of viewers which could not accepted with another actor.
They should've finished out the second season in dealing with Paul's death, but not renewed it for a third season. The ratings dropped for a reason.I agree totally. That way, there would have been more episodes with him than without him. I always hate when an irreplacable member of a TV cast for whatever reason can't do the show anymore, and yet, the show still goes on. I mean, what's the point? It should just stop there, cause without that key person, it's not really the same show anymore anyway!
RIP, Mr. Ritter. You sure were cute! 💐
Please excuse typos/funny wording; I use speech-recognition that doesn't always recognize! share
John didn't really get to utilize his special brand of humor much in this show in my opinion, so I think he could have been replaced, but in no way should he have been. That would have been totally disrespectful. I can't stomach to watch the first few episodes after his death due to how sad they were, but they handled it the right way.
🍒🍌
It looked like John Ritter was starting to do a little of his physical traits in season 2. There was a part when him and Cate were in the girls room to talk to them and he had Cate start the conversation while he curled up in the bed. Also, he did his hsss sound to Cate, ala what he would do to Roper on Three's Company. It was an unfortunate and extremely sad of his passing. Replacing John wouldn't have worked in ths same manner as Bewitched's Dick York with Dick Sargent. James Garner was surprisingly funny as Cate's Dad and adding David Spade as Cate's nephew worked as well. I believe the show could have gone on a 7-8 year run if John Ritter didn't pass. At the same time I would have loved to see how Cate's and Principal Gibb relationship would have developed. Then again, Sons of Anarchy's Gemma Teller-Morrow would have been played by someone else.
share