Three's Company

[Snarky Oracle!]

The way the producer gushed about Lana/Wedgeworth, even decades later, one wonders about the objectivity behind the camera.

And their morphing self-destructively from THREE'S COMPANY to THREE'S A CROWD proves the judgment issues further.

 

[ClassyCo]

The way the producer gushed about Lana/Wedgeworth, even decades later, one wonders about the objectivity behind the camera.

The producers did seem to be genuinely excited to have Ann Wedgeworth join the cast. What few writers and producers I've heard express their dismay at her ultimate dismissal, have also complimented her talent and what they felt she could've brought to the show under the proper writing.

I seem to recall John Ritter complimenting Wedgeworth's looks and talent, while saying the dynamic between Jack and Lana appeared "false" because of Jack's womanizing nature and Lana's willingness to be his "snuggle bunny" whenever he wished. Wedgeworth, as one would imagine, was disappointed in what she had been promised and how her role ending up "dwindling down to practically nothing". Wedgeworth receives screen credit for thirteen episodes (due to contract obligations), but isn't presented but for nine episodes.

 

[Crimson]

The way the producer gushed about Lana/Wedgeworth, even decades later, one wonders about the objectivity behind the camera.

I think the producer was onto something though. By season four, the premise of the show was already getting tired. Furley lusting for Lana while Lana lusted for Jack was fresh. I think Ritter's alleged complaint that Jack wouldn't turn down Lana's advances missed the point. A man who objectifies women not enjoying being objectified by a woman is pretty damn funny; Eddie Murphy made a whole movie about it.

To me there is no "perfect" season of THREE'S COMPANY; I tend to like bits and pieces. I love the Lana season, but Chrissy had become annoying by then. I prefer Cindy over S4 Chrissy. I love the Ropers, but think Don Knotts integrated into the cast better; the Ropers seemed often relegated to a B-plot.

When you look at it, I'm sure Ritter was perfectly okay with ABC and the producers making THREE'S COMPANY into "The John Ritter Show". He already had it in his contract that he'd make more per episode than all of his co-stars

I think the producers decided early it was easier to have one star than three and played Ritter against his female co-stars. How active Ritter was in that is unclear. While I don't believe Somers' later recounting of events, she is right that the trio would have fared batter if they had stuck together the way the FRIENDS cast later did. "Every man of himself" only worked out for Ritter.

 

[Soaplover]

Season 4 seemed to be a soft reset for the show with bringing in Furley and Lana to take over the Roper role.. with Lana and Furley having more interaction with the main three. The camping episode is one of the funniest episodes of the show..imho.

I know the show revisits the older women objectifying Jack when Ellen Travoltra (of Charles in Charge fame) as his boss that makes passes at him at work.. but this time framing it as sexual harrassment on the job.. and Jack not being believed because of the idea that women weren't capable of that.

Season 5 is a transition season, and I think having Cindy on there as someone younger could have been a way to reset the naive blonde character (think season 1/2 of Chrissy)... but Cindy also participates in physical comedy with Jack. Most always focus on John Ritter and his physical comedic talent.. but Jennilee was so important with setting up the routine and doing so flawlessly. Sadly, the show just viewed her as a placeholder so she was never allowed to truly develop a character.

Season 6 had a strong intro for Terri, someone that kind of had the potential to be sarcastic with a heart... but after the first few episodes, the show just has be just be a placeholder.. even though the actress was charming. Eventually the show made her the straight man and made Janet the more spastic one.

 

[Crimson]

The camping episode is one of the funniest episodes of the show

I agree. Followed, for me, by the S5 guest appearance of the Ropers.

My own wished for cast for the remainder of the series was Cindy remaining (sorry, Terri), with Lana and the Ropers being at least recurring guests.

 

[Chris2]

I think the producers decided early it was easier to have one star than three and played Ritter against his female co-stars. How active Ritter was in that is unclear. While I don't believe Somers' later recounting of events, she is right that the trio would have fared batter if they had stuck together the way the FRIENDS cast later did. "Every man of himself" only worked out for Ritter.

Ritter would have been better off banding together with DeWitt and Somers to get profit participation (i.e. backend points) in the show. It made over $500 million in revenue in its initial syndication cycle. The three leads deserved a piece of that. And the producers ddn’t have to share it with a studio either, since TC was an independent production.

But I believe that John and Joyce were a naive in terms of the money the show was making and didn’t do anything about it. Suzanne wasn’t, but she didn’t have savvy representation to position herself for success in the negotiations. They absolutely should have banded together; it’s amazing to me that none of their agents made that happen.

I won’t blame John all that much for not telling Joyce about the spinoff; he was an employee, not a manager. And she was a colleague, not a friend. He naively trusted the producers of the show to handle the situation. And she was naive if she didn’t realize that they were going to eventually spin off the main character of the show, as they did with the British original. The lion’s share of the blame lies with producer Don Taffner and associates - they’re the ones who exploited the naïveté of their young cast, treated the women as disposable, and enjoyed humiliating Suzanne with her tiny part in the fifth season.

 

[ClassyCo]

I agree. Followed, for me, by the S5 guest appearance of the Ropers.

The camping episode is one of the funniest episodes of the show..imho.

"A-Camping We Will Go" is easily my favorite episode of the entire show. Whenever I need a "fix" on THREE'S COMPANY, that's usually the episode I'm going to first.

My own wished for cast for the remainder of the series was Cindy remaining (sorry, Terri), with Lana and the Ropers being at least recurring guests.

This is an interesting set-up, and I'm inclined to agree that this would've been a good cast of characters. Even if they didn't decide to bring the Ropers back or keep Lana full-time, it would've been nice had they brought them in occasionally.

I won’t blame John all that much for not telling Joyce about the spinoff; he was an employee, not a manager. And she was a colleague, not a friend. He naively trusted the producers of the show to handle the situation. And she was naive if she didn’t realize that they were going to eventually spin off the main character of the show, as they did with the British original. The lion’s share of the blame lies with producer Don Taffner and associates - they’re the ones who exploited the naïveté of their young cast, treated the women as disposable, and enjoyed humiliating Suzanne with her tiny part in the fifth season.

Ummm.... I'm divided here. Perhaps I've overestimated their off-screen friendship, but John and Joyce appeared to be close and thought of themselves more than co-workers. So, yeah, to me, he should've told her.

Season 5 is a transition season, and I think having Cindy on there as someone younger could have been a way to reset the naive blonde character (think season 1/2 of Chrissy)... but Cindy also participates in physical comedy with Jack. Most always focus on John Ritter and his physical comedic talent.. but Jennilee was so important with setting up the routine and doing so flawlessly. Sadly, the show just viewed her as a placeholder so she was never allowed to truly develop a character.

Season 5 is better than one might assume with all the issues going on behind-the-scenes. Honestly, the most "fractured" thing about the episodes is the fact that Suzanne is still in the opening credits and appears in those awkward scenes at the end of some of the episodes.

Season 6 had a strong intro for Terri, someone that kind of had the potential to be sarcastic with a heart... but after the first few episodes, the show just has be just be a placeholder.. even though the actress was charming. Eventually the show made her the straight man and made Janet the more spastic one.

Poor Priscilla Barnes was in over her head, and she admitted it. She felt all the attention for getting the job was unwarranted, and she instantly wanted out. The producers held her to her three-year contract, but were more than happy to sideline her.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Poor Priscilla Barnes was in over her head, and she admitted it.

And yet, she was the funniest female.

 

[Crimson]

Ritter would have been better off banding together with DeWitt and Somers to get profit participation (i.e. backend points) in the show. It made over $500 million in revenue in its initial syndication cycle.

While I don't disagree, that would have been exceedingly rare for actors in the 70s/80s. I think O'Connor only got a salary bump after his AITF walkout. Production companies were desperate to keep actors from sharing backend profits. While the trio banding together might have worked, I think it's just as likely that all three would have been fired and three younger characters would have moved into Furley's building.

 

[Chris2]

Ummm.... I'm divided here. Perhaps I've overestimated their off-screen friendship, but John and Joyce appeared to be close and thought of themselves more than co-workers. So, yeah, to me, he should've told her.

I look at it this way. Let’s say I’ve been working for a company for eight years, and in the last year, sales have dropped off. Management has decided that they’re going to revamp the product offering, and that will involve some of my colleagues leaving. They’ve confidentially shared the news with me and asked me to continue. I’m not going to tell people that their jobs are ending; that’s the job of management. And my manager would be angry with me if I took it upon myself to spread that news, leaving them to deal with the fallout.

But I appreciate your perspective. And It’s possible John viewed them as colleagues first, and Joyce viewed themselves as friends first, and that’s why she was upset with him. I never saw anything in the press that showed John being super tight with his former colleagues after the show over, FWIW. None of them ever appeared with him on his other series.

 

[Daniel Avery]

...and maybe part of the reason Three's A Crowd was DOA was because the producers over-estimated the audience's willingness to follow Ritter/Jack to a new setting without DeWitt, Barnes, Knotts, etc. Struggling spin-offs often send in actors from the "mother ship" to help remind viewers of that old magic, but the way those others were 'discarded' made it highly unlikely they would want to reprise their roles in guest shots on TAC. Heck, they may have secretly enjoyed watching TAC go down in flames.

 

[Crimson]

part of the reason Three's A Crowd was DOA was because the producers over-estimated the audience's willingness to follow Ritter/Jack to a new setting

It certainly didn't help that TC was already in decline. I haven't seen TAC in ages, but even looking at a cast photo there's an obvious problem. That cast just wasn't very good. Whatever flaws TC had, every iteration was stacked with likeable, fun actors playing endearing characters. Mary Cadorette was pleasant at best, and Robert Mandan reminds me of Gale Gordon, always kind of unlikable on screen. That worked fine on SOAP but when 2/3 of a cast is unremarkable or unlikeable, it's not off to a good start.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

THREE'S COMPANY had, according to Wikipedia, dropped to 33rd place by its eighth (1983-84) season. But how objective could the producers be to think the THREE'S A CROWD spin-off sequel could work? It was coldly unappealing in its shiny mid-'80s way, and even the title suggests an exclusionary rejection of the original show (i.e., everybody but Ritter).

Let's face it, though, THREE'S COMPANY was never the most sophisticated of material. And the behind-the-scenes people who were providing that material were presumably the same ones making the decisions about if, what, how, and when -- so could we be surprised that the spin-off tanked?

Of course, who knows how long THREE'S COMPANY could have continued had they not attempted the sequel?... Ninth seasons tend to see a creative upswing. I think it could have run 11 seasons, until 1987, before closing shop.

And I never even really liked it all that much!

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

It certainly didn't help that TC was already in decline. I haven't seen TAC in ages, but even looking at a cast photo there's an obvious problem. That cast just wasn't very good. Whatever flaws TC had, every iteration was stacked with likeable, fun actors playing endearing characters. Mary Cadorette was pleasant at best, and Robert Mandan reminds me of Gale Gordon, always kind of unlikable on screen. That worked fine on SOAP but when 2/3 of a cast is unremarkable or unlikeable, it's not off to a good start.

I tend to agree. I still liked the first 3 seasons best, with Jack, Chrissie, Janet, Mr & Mrs Roper

Don Knotts is always great, but the humor had gone too far over the top at that point

Richard Kline's role expanded and that worked well

But the show was never as funny or as good again without Suzanne Somers, despite the contract fiasco

 

[ClassyCo]

I tend to agree. I still liked the first 3 seasons best, with Jack, Chrissie, Janet, Mr & Mrs Roper

Don Knotts is always great, but the humor had gone too far over the top at that point

Richard Kline's role expanded and that worked well

But the show was never as funny or as good again without Suzanne Somers, despite the contract fiasco

For me, I have the strongest fondness for the early Season 4 episodes that feature Lana and introduce Mr. Furley into the ensemble. I personally think that Mr. Furley worked better as part of the group, while the Ropers, who were quite funny, served best as a B-plot that wasn't always brought into the main story of the episode. But, that's just my opinion.

My fondness for those early Season 4 episodes comes from my discovering the show on TV Land many years ago and those being the first episodes I saw. If memory serves, one of the very first episodes I watched was "A-Camping We Will Go", and it remains my favorite. It's a hilarious episode and practically sums up what it takes to have a top-tier THREE'S COMPANY episode.

 

[Laura Avery-Sumner]

Suzanne wasn’t, but she didn’t have savvy representation to position herself for success in the negotiations. They absolutely should have banded together; it’s amazing to me that none of their agents made that happen.

She and her agent might have stood a chance there had her husband Alan Hamel had kept out of the negotiations. He was doing commercials for Aplha Beta (a grocery store) at the time but he sure did move in on her career once it was going.

 

[ClassyCo]

She and her agent might have stood a chance there had her husband Alan Hamel had kept out of the negotiations. He was doing commercials for Aplha Beta (a grocery store) at the time but he sure did move in on her career once it was going.

The "banding together" idea might've gotten the lead trio -- Ritter, DeWitt, and Somers -- a raise, but I seriously doubt it would've gotten them what Suzanne was seeking. She was requesting $150,000 per episode and 10% ownership of the show, which was a drastic increase from what she was already getting. John had it in his contract that he made more than Suzanne and Joyce, and the two girls had a "favored nations" clause in their contract, stating the two of them shared the same per episode salary. As producer Ted Bergmann stated, that would've put them at somewhere around $500,000 in just salary obligations for the three leads (excluding salaries for Don Knotts, Richard Kline, the guest stars, etc.) before they even started writing a script. THREE'S COMPANY was successful, but it wasn't that successful.

 

[Soaplover]

I think Three's A Crowd could have worked had the show spent the last season setting up the spinoff by showing Jack meeting Vicki during the season and start dating, Janet meeting Phillip (they were adorable together in the few episodes I saw them in together), while Terri could have been shown getting restless at her job and figuring out if she wanted to stay in Calfornia or move.

So not only was behind the scenes not a healthy place, but the show bought the changes on in such quick succession that the audience didn't have time to adjust.

Watching the pilot episode of Three's a Crowd, I understood the addition of EZ.. a surfer dude with talents in the kitchen. An male 80s version of Chrissy Snow

 

[ClassyCo]

I think Three's A Crowd could have worked had the show spent the last season setting up the spinoff by showing Jack meeting Vicki during the season and start dating, Janet meeting Phillip (they were adorable together in the few episodes I saw them in together), while Terri could have been shown getting restless at her job and figuring out if she wanted to stay in Calfornia or move.

So not only was behind the scenes not a healthy place, but the show bought the changes on in such quick succession that the audience didn't have time to adjust.

Watching the pilot episode of Three's a Crowd, I understood the addition of EZ.. a surfer dude with talents in the kitchen. An male 80s version of Chrissy Snow

You know, I've never seen THREE'S A CROWD, and I've never really had a strong desire to so. From what I gather, the show was basically an attempt by ABC to keep John Ritter on their lineup in some form of a sitcom. The issue is THREE'S COMPANY had limped into exhaustion by its final season, which something even Ritter himself later admitted. Ritter said the show started "ripping off themselves", or something similar, when relaying the similarities between a first season and final season episode premise.

I honestly don't know how any of them thought THREE'S A CROWD was going to work. John Ritter was a very good physical comic and was quite good delivering a punchline, but ABC should've shaken things up and given him something entirely new to do. I understand their desire to keep him in a sitcom and their decision in building on the established THREE'S COMPANY brand, but the show had just worn itself out. He needed something new to move forward.

 

[Soaplover]

You know, I've never seen THREE'S A CROWD, and I've never really had a strong desire to so. From what I gather, the show was basically an attempt by ABC to keep John Ritter on their lineup in some form of a sitcom. The issue is THREE'S COMPANY had limped into exhaustion by its final season, which something even Ritter himself later admitted. Ritter said the show started "ripping off themselves", or something similar, when relaying the similarities between a first season and final season episode premise.

I honestly don't know how any of them thought THREE'S A CROWD was going to work. John Ritter was a very good physical comic and was quite good delivering a punchline, but ABC should've shaken things up and given him something entirely new to do. I understand their desire to keep him in a sitcom and their decision in building on the established THREE'S COMPANY brand, but the show had just worn itself out. He needed something new to move forward.

I was too young to see TAC.. but I watch it on Tubi (a US streaming site).. and it's a charming show.. but it's limiting in terms of doors. You only have four main cast members (Jack, Vicky, Vicky's dad, and EZ) so the avenues to explore comedy are more limited vs in Three's Company where the three girls, Ropers/Furley, Larry, and Jack could provide plenty of avenues to explore.

I believe because the UK version had a spin off with the UK's version of Jack ( think it was called Robin's Nest), people at the network thought the USA should have one. I would have done it at least one to two seasons earlier before TC had started to grow stale.