While I was lucky to get hold of all 22 episodes of Three's a Crowd on DVD, I'm not surprised it lasted just one season. They were running out of ideas and some of the jokes were getting a bit stale. Another well known fact was that Three's a Crowd was a spin off to Three's Company, yet while watching the former, its almost as there never was a latter. How many times in TC we heard Janet, Jack, Chrissy, Cindy, Terri etc say how they were the best friends they ever had, but in TAC, its as if Janet, Chrissy, Cindy and Terri never existed. I mean if you have best friends, then it is expected that you will keep in touch with them and meet up with them from time to time. With the exception of the appearance of Larry in one episode of TAC, there is not a word mentioned of Janet, Chrissy, Cindy, Terri, the Ropers and Furley. One would expect Jack to occasionally talk about living with Janet, Chrissy, Terri, Cindy, Lana or the Ropers and Furley and tell Vicky about some of the outrageous situations they found themselves in. After all he spent so many years with them. Its as if he's forgotten all about them. To add a touch of reality or authenticity to the show, they could have shown Janet and her husband come by to Jack's Bistro for a meal in a few episodes (married couples do eat out, especially if their best friend owns a restaurant!) or for Jack to receive an occasional phone call from Terri or Cindy or have Furley (or even the Ropers) drop by the Bistro to see how Jack was doing in his new life or as I mentioned before, tell Vicky about those amusing situations he and the girls got themselves into when they shared that apartment. That is what I missed the most. I actually missed the past characters and I think that was one of the essential ingredients missing from TAC. It might have fared better if they would have occasionally pulled in some of the old cast members as guest stars, but its all water under the bridge now and long gone. Either way, we shall never see comedy like that again and I'm glad we now have them all immortalized on DVD.
17 Reviews
Not Bad but Not Great Either
franzooey13 May 2018
Just finished a Three's Company marathon, complete with spin-offs (I also wrote a review for The Ropers).
TAC is not as bad as some other reviewers have stated, but it's certainly a letdown after Three's Company. It doesn't help that by the time Season 8 of Three's Company came around, the show had grown a bit stale: still enjoyable but running out of steam. That does not make for a great hand-off to the new show.
And the new show is in a lot of ways the same as the old show, only much more tepid. Mary Cordette as Vicki Bradford, Jack's girlfriend, is perfectly fine, but comedy is not her metier. Robert Mandan as Mr. Bradford is a pro. His presence is stabilizing, as is the reoccurring role of Jessica Walter as Claudia, Vicki's mother. Alan Campbell as Jack's surfer-dude sous-chef is a bit grating.
But tepidity is the issue. The show doesn't know what it wants to be. The first five or six episodes are sluggish because they mostly continue the new-couple-in-love storyline that, quite frankly, dragged down the final episodes of Three's Company. In fact, this rom-com-lite feel permeates the entire single season of TAC. Other times, the show tries to go for the tried-and-true formulae of TC: the physical pratfalls of Ritter, the double-entendres, the overheard conversations, the misunderstood conversations. Occasionally, they are hilarious, and one is briefly reminded of the pure farce of TC.
Farce. That's what I and so many viewers loved about TC. The original show did not try to be serious. It did not try to lecture or pander. It refused to turn mawkish or maudlin (NOTE: The show's final hour-long episode is an exception, awkwardly going for gush instead of gut-busting laughs). TAC, thus, is in an awkward position. If it tries to rehash TC's blueprint, it risks being lambasted as unoriginal. If it tries to go in a different direction--lukewarm and fuzzy romance with dashes of humor added in--the show is also painted into a corner.
Nonetheless, the show is far from awful. In fact, it finds its semi-stride for a number of mid-season episodes. TAC is harmless and nostalgic, especially for anyone, like me, who misses Ritter, Three's Company, and 80s neon fashion!
TAC is not as bad as some other reviewers have stated, but it's certainly a letdown after Three's Company. It doesn't help that by the time Season 8 of Three's Company came around, the show had grown a bit stale: still enjoyable but running out of steam. That does not make for a great hand-off to the new show.
And the new show is in a lot of ways the same as the old show, only much more tepid. Mary Cordette as Vicki Bradford, Jack's girlfriend, is perfectly fine, but comedy is not her metier. Robert Mandan as Mr. Bradford is a pro. His presence is stabilizing, as is the reoccurring role of Jessica Walter as Claudia, Vicki's mother. Alan Campbell as Jack's surfer-dude sous-chef is a bit grating.
But tepidity is the issue. The show doesn't know what it wants to be. The first five or six episodes are sluggish because they mostly continue the new-couple-in-love storyline that, quite frankly, dragged down the final episodes of Three's Company. In fact, this rom-com-lite feel permeates the entire single season of TAC. Other times, the show tries to go for the tried-and-true formulae of TC: the physical pratfalls of Ritter, the double-entendres, the overheard conversations, the misunderstood conversations. Occasionally, they are hilarious, and one is briefly reminded of the pure farce of TC.
Farce. That's what I and so many viewers loved about TC. The original show did not try to be serious. It did not try to lecture or pander. It refused to turn mawkish or maudlin (NOTE: The show's final hour-long episode is an exception, awkwardly going for gush instead of gut-busting laughs). TAC, thus, is in an awkward position. If it tries to rehash TC's blueprint, it risks being lambasted as unoriginal. If it tries to go in a different direction--lukewarm and fuzzy romance with dashes of humor added in--the show is also painted into a corner.
Nonetheless, the show is far from awful. In fact, it finds its semi-stride for a number of mid-season episodes. TAC is harmless and nostalgic, especially for anyone, like me, who misses Ritter, Three's Company, and 80s neon fashion!
Spin-offs is never a good idea
jamesjustice-9211 March 2021
After fantastic 8 seasons of "Three's company" I was left disappointed with how the things wrapped up for the gang - the creators basically crumpled Terri & Janet's character's exits from the show instead focusing the last episodes on Jack and his new relationship with Vicky almost completely. Suffice it to say that Three's a crowd felt out of place and none of the cast members (except Richard Klein's Larry) ever appeared on the show or were even mentioned by name once: after so much time together the creators could have at least acknowledged their own characters with a line or two. Besides this fact the series was flat, tired and uninspiring and there are only 3-4 episodes out of the whole season of 22 that really stand out - all the rest is filler leading the characters nowhere; multiple episodes ended without proper resolution of the story arcs - so what was the point of this whole show? Beats me. Though there was a nice addition to the cast in the face of E.Z. character played marvellously by Alan Campbell and John Ritter and Mary Cadorette were a great on-screen couple, they sadly got their chemistry wasted on this mess of a TV spin-off of a far superior original.
Thin in comparison to the classic show
TheCooperVane31 July 2001
A mostly harmless spin-off (which I haven't seen in syndication in almost 10 years), this followed Jack Tripper to his new home - with a new cantankerous landlord who also happens to be the father of his live-in girlfriend. The jokes had grown old, and John Ritter started to look trapped in the Tripper persona. Not a show to be well remembered.
While Mary Cordette did an adequate job as Jack's love interest, I think it would have been much better for the show had, at the end of Three's Company, Jack and Janet realized there were deeper feelings for each other than had previously been recognized. The spin-off following them would have likely been more successful (and popular; I seem to recall that fans of the original show often clamored for a romance between the two characters who lasted the entire run of the show).
While Mary Cordette did an adequate job as Jack's love interest, I think it would have been much better for the show had, at the end of Three's Company, Jack and Janet realized there were deeper feelings for each other than had previously been recognized. The spin-off following them would have likely been more successful (and popular; I seem to recall that fans of the original show often clamored for a romance between the two characters who lasted the entire run of the show).
One of the worst TV Spin-offs . . . Ever!!
got51921 August 2013
Three's a Crowd is boring, direction-less, and painfully unfunny. The producers made no attempt to create a new and exciting vehicle for John Ritter's brilliant physical comedy, they were simply coasting on the laurels of Three's Company's success.
Three's a Crowd obviously couldn't have featured any of the dynamics that made Three's Company so hilarious like the sexual tensions and misunderstandings that come as a result of a man living with two women; not to mention Jack's charade of pretending that he was gay around Mr. Roper, and later Mr. Furley, so he could go on living in the apartment. So what did they do to make up for those missing attributes on this spin-off?
Nothing. The Jack Tripper of this show is barely the same character from Three's Company. The overzealous, yet lovable klutz is rarely seen here. Instead, Jack is a boring husband and business owner nearing middle-age. His wife, Vicki, played by Mary Cadorette, is equally as uncharismatic. We get to see glimpses of the old Jack in the episodes, "Jack Gets Trashed" and "A Star Is Born" but these sightings are too few and far between. In fact, Jack is even used as a straight man to wackier characters like his chef, E.Z. Taylor.
E.Z., a Spicoli-like surf bum is more annoying than funny. Why didn't they use Felipe Gomez, the reoccurring character from seasons 5 to 7 of Three's Company, for the chef? Not only was that character hilarious but he shared an awesome chemistry with Jack. I guess that pairing would have worked too well.
Jack's antagonistic relationship with his father-in-law, Mr. Bradford, played by Robert Mandan of Soap, would have been more entertaining if we hadn't seen it done before. They share the exact same discord that Jack had with Mr. Angelino, only not near as amusing.
Jack's mother-in-law, Claudia, played by Jessica Walter, is on this show for the sole purpose of exchanging clichéd ex-spouse jokes with Mr. Bradford. Henny Youngman should have sued the show just on the basis of these two characters stealing his material.
It's no shock that this show only lasted a single season. The only great thing about Three's a Crowd is that it gives us much more of an appreciation for Three's Company.
Three's a Crowd obviously couldn't have featured any of the dynamics that made Three's Company so hilarious like the sexual tensions and misunderstandings that come as a result of a man living with two women; not to mention Jack's charade of pretending that he was gay around Mr. Roper, and later Mr. Furley, so he could go on living in the apartment. So what did they do to make up for those missing attributes on this spin-off?
Nothing. The Jack Tripper of this show is barely the same character from Three's Company. The overzealous, yet lovable klutz is rarely seen here. Instead, Jack is a boring husband and business owner nearing middle-age. His wife, Vicki, played by Mary Cadorette, is equally as uncharismatic. We get to see glimpses of the old Jack in the episodes, "Jack Gets Trashed" and "A Star Is Born" but these sightings are too few and far between. In fact, Jack is even used as a straight man to wackier characters like his chef, E.Z. Taylor.
E.Z., a Spicoli-like surf bum is more annoying than funny. Why didn't they use Felipe Gomez, the reoccurring character from seasons 5 to 7 of Three's Company, for the chef? Not only was that character hilarious but he shared an awesome chemistry with Jack. I guess that pairing would have worked too well.
Jack's antagonistic relationship with his father-in-law, Mr. Bradford, played by Robert Mandan of Soap, would have been more entertaining if we hadn't seen it done before. They share the exact same discord that Jack had with Mr. Angelino, only not near as amusing.
Jack's mother-in-law, Claudia, played by Jessica Walter, is on this show for the sole purpose of exchanging clichéd ex-spouse jokes with Mr. Bradford. Henny Youngman should have sued the show just on the basis of these two characters stealing his material.
It's no shock that this show only lasted a single season. The only great thing about Three's a Crowd is that it gives us much more of an appreciation for Three's Company.
Three's a Crowd my review
chernevog11 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Having watched Three's Company almost from the start of its original run, and having also watched Three's a Crowd during it's original run and finally seeing it once more within the last few weeks, I can safely say Three's a Crowd never had whatever chemistry the original Three's Company possessed.
Three's a Crowd barely ever dealt with anything beyond Jack and Vicky having sex. It's not hard to see why this show failed. There were a few episodes that actually dealt with something other than Vicky's private parts, but mostly the show was about grownups acting like sex-starved teenagers.
Beyond that, the writing was also not very funny. I don't think it was Ritter himself that wasn't funny, the writers were just not very good. The characters didn't seem to work very well with each other either. You didn't have the type of wacky fun you had with characters like Jack and Mr. Roper.
Lastly, you have to think like a Studio Exec. Janet and the other girls from Three's company were getting too old to be cute in the mind of a Studio Exec, so they probably wanted to bring in a fresh new good-looking babe to keep the male audience interested. That's Hollywood for you, John Ritter could probably still be playing Jack Tripper at 60 or 70 if he were alive and they'd find a good-looking 20 something year-old babe to play his girlfriend.
p.s. Three's Company was at its best when the Ropers were the landlords, I love Don Knotts, but it just wasn't the same anymore without the Ropers.
p.s. #2 I actually find the Ropers much funnier than I find Three's a Crowd.
Three's a Crowd barely ever dealt with anything beyond Jack and Vicky having sex. It's not hard to see why this show failed. There were a few episodes that actually dealt with something other than Vicky's private parts, but mostly the show was about grownups acting like sex-starved teenagers.
Beyond that, the writing was also not very funny. I don't think it was Ritter himself that wasn't funny, the writers were just not very good. The characters didn't seem to work very well with each other either. You didn't have the type of wacky fun you had with characters like Jack and Mr. Roper.
Lastly, you have to think like a Studio Exec. Janet and the other girls from Three's company were getting too old to be cute in the mind of a Studio Exec, so they probably wanted to bring in a fresh new good-looking babe to keep the male audience interested. That's Hollywood for you, John Ritter could probably still be playing Jack Tripper at 60 or 70 if he were alive and they'd find a good-looking 20 something year-old babe to play his girlfriend.
p.s. Three's Company was at its best when the Ropers were the landlords, I love Don Knotts, but it just wasn't the same anymore without the Ropers.
p.s. #2 I actually find the Ropers much funnier than I find Three's a Crowd.
a flat spin-off
SnoopyStyle27 March 2019
The finale of Three's Company has Janet having her wedding in the apartment. Jack Tripper (John Ritter) and flight attendant girlfriend Vicky Bradford (Mary Cadorette) get into a fight caused by her disapproving father James (Robert Mandan). She turns down Jack's marriage proposal due to her parents' troubled divorce. Jack agrees to live together with her in an apartment above the restaurant. The couple is surprised by her dad who bought the building along with the restaurant from Mr. Angelino. Jack hires surfer dude EZ Taylor as his assistant chef. A recurring role is Vicky's mother Claudia (Jessica Walter).
Three's Company presents itself as a young, sexy sitcom but at its core, it's a standard conservative show. The problem with the sequel is that it starts with Jack being the conservative partner. Vicky is doubly a dud. They're like an old married couple despite their living-in-sin situation. That's fine but nothing else is funny. Mandan is a standard sitcom comedic heavy. EZ contributes nothing. No matter how hard John Ritter tries, few of this works. The basic premise is flawed and it gets tired trying to live up to its predecessor's success. The title probably came first and then the premise got assembled after that. I would have put a young teen girl as the third wheel in the apartment. That would be a more direct symmetry to the first show. It would also allow Jack and Vicky be the old couple trying to corral a rebellious teen who would essentially be the new Chrissy. In that case, the dad James would become the Ropers and Mr. Furley and Mr. Angelino combined into one. It's an easier group than this one. The continuing conflict between Jack and Vicky about marriage gets tiresome. Even the theme song sounds tired. Despite being a new show, this is actually running on fumes from its predecessor. As for Janet and Jack doing the new show together, Janet would definitely have more chemistry than Vicky. It's still no guarantee that it would work much better. It's not like the show had a great track record of good spinoffs.
Three's Company presents itself as a young, sexy sitcom but at its core, it's a standard conservative show. The problem with the sequel is that it starts with Jack being the conservative partner. Vicky is doubly a dud. They're like an old married couple despite their living-in-sin situation. That's fine but nothing else is funny. Mandan is a standard sitcom comedic heavy. EZ contributes nothing. No matter how hard John Ritter tries, few of this works. The basic premise is flawed and it gets tired trying to live up to its predecessor's success. The title probably came first and then the premise got assembled after that. I would have put a young teen girl as the third wheel in the apartment. That would be a more direct symmetry to the first show. It would also allow Jack and Vicky be the old couple trying to corral a rebellious teen who would essentially be the new Chrissy. In that case, the dad James would become the Ropers and Mr. Furley and Mr. Angelino combined into one. It's an easier group than this one. The continuing conflict between Jack and Vicky about marriage gets tiresome. Even the theme song sounds tired. Despite being a new show, this is actually running on fumes from its predecessor. As for Janet and Jack doing the new show together, Janet would definitely have more chemistry than Vicky. It's still no guarantee that it would work much better. It's not like the show had a great track record of good spinoffs.
I enjoyed it much more the second time around
segafan-2204519 December 2021
When I first watched Threes a Crowd I didn't really like it. It felt odd. I am a Threes Company fanatic and I think I didn't want change. Now that I watch it on PlutoTV while I work from home I really appreciate it. EZ grew on me and Vicki's father cracks me up. Great cast all around. I think one more season would have been neat but hey it's more Jack Tripper. That works for me.
Does okay for what it can do
nickb-2281325 May 2022
Three's Company was obviously coming to an end with its eighth season in 1984. A few of the episodes had plots that were repetitive or reminiscent of earlier episodes in the series and the writing was getting dry and unsurprising.
Then came Three's a Crowd. The spin-off featured Jack living with his girlfriend Vicki in the apartment above his restaurant. Her father James takes over as landlord and owner of the building so as to keep a careful watch over his daughter and her boyfriend. James and Jack maintain a love-hate relationship that becomes pretty much the central conflict of the series.
While John Ritter is certainly a king of comedy, he cannot make the series a success alone and this spin-off is proof of that. Three's Company built its success off of the misunderstandings and relationships between the characters. But because there are essentially only four main characters - Jack, Vicki, James, and E. Z. - it was hard for Three's a Crowd to take off. Every episode seemed to entail some form of the fact that Jack and James do not see eye-to-eye. Vicki was not given enough of a role in the series either and seemed more like a side character (almost like the role Larry played in Three's Co.) than anything. The writing was just really low quality, almost as though the writers knew the series wasn't going to be successful. Three's a Crowd does alright for what it has available but the Ropers was by far the better spin-off.
Then came Three's a Crowd. The spin-off featured Jack living with his girlfriend Vicki in the apartment above his restaurant. Her father James takes over as landlord and owner of the building so as to keep a careful watch over his daughter and her boyfriend. James and Jack maintain a love-hate relationship that becomes pretty much the central conflict of the series.
While John Ritter is certainly a king of comedy, he cannot make the series a success alone and this spin-off is proof of that. Three's Company built its success off of the misunderstandings and relationships between the characters. But because there are essentially only four main characters - Jack, Vicki, James, and E. Z. - it was hard for Three's a Crowd to take off. Every episode seemed to entail some form of the fact that Jack and James do not see eye-to-eye. Vicki was not given enough of a role in the series either and seemed more like a side character (almost like the role Larry played in Three's Co.) than anything. The writing was just really low quality, almost as though the writers knew the series wasn't going to be successful. Three's a Crowd does alright for what it has available but the Ropers was by far the better spin-off.
Doomed to Fail
bigwhiskers-121706 January 2024
The whole behind the scenes to the setup of this show doomed it to failure. When you read about how Ritter snuck around and alienated his cast mates from Three's Company was an omen. Then you have Kline and Knotts declining to be in it which was also a bad sign not to mention DeWitt getting blind sided by walking in on the interviews for Jack's girlfriend Vicki . I mean 3's Company needed to end , the characters had gone as far as they could and the recycled plotlines were boring and unfunny and the actors were getting too old to keep playing these fun loving single roommates. However the rush job of wrapping up the roommates storylines so Ritter could sneak into 3's A Crowd was terrible - Janet meets a guy and gets married over the course of 3 episodes ,Terry finds a job in Hawaii and Jack also meets and falls in love with a very imo unattractive girl named Vicki all in the same few episodes. I'm sure audiences didn't like it and of course it was hard to believe that Jack would have settled just like that and with a girl like Vicki. I watched the pilot of 3/s A Crowd and it wasn't funny and you can tell the same writers from 3's Company were also the writers of this show because they couldn't figure out what to do with Ritter who was a ham and kept borrowing from 3's Company's old plotlines by having similar plots of misunderstandings and the same tired Ritter doing slapstick and probably ad-libbing .
The only thing good about the show was Robert Mandan who played Vicki's father James. He was funny but unfortunately wasn't given much to work with and usually ended up in the background trying to keep Ritter from hogging everything . I give it a 3/10 for him but a 0 for everything else.
The only thing good about the show was Robert Mandan who played Vicki's father James. He was funny but unfortunately wasn't given much to work with and usually ended up in the background trying to keep Ritter from hogging everything . I give it a 3/10 for him but a 0 for everything else.
Why is Jack such an idiot??
goldpisces25 April 2023
They really took a charming and charismatic man, and turned him into an insufferable, intolerable, IDIOT! He acts like a complete Idiot most episodes, and does things that make 0 sense. If they wanted the show to be decent that should have made Jack be who he was in Threes company, Brought back Janet, and Added Mr. Furley and Larry as Neighbors. Now that would have been a show! Heck even add Chrissy in Few episodes. The show actually had Potential, but they ruined Jacks Character, Vicky's dad is just flat out Rude, Disrespectful, and Unlikable. The Surfer Cook, is annoying and weird. Poor choice of writing, and casting. I would rate this a 4/10! If you want nostalgia and something new to watch from Threes Company, it's not bad.
Three's A Crowd: all time favorites
ef56331 July 2007
I think I'm the only one on this board appreciating Three's A Crowd TAC) much much more than Three's Company (TC). Me and my wife had hilarious nights with TAC. TAC's humor is more mature than Three's Company's. I have all the episodes of TC but when I watch them I mostly feel bored, especially by the flat characters of the girls. TAC's storyline digs deeper. The only hilarious character in the storyline is Jack. And that is a very good thing because he's the only one capable of humor without becoming a gross cartoon figure (like the girls, the ropers, Larry, etc. in TC). Vicky in TAC is not trying to be 'funny' like Janet in TC. This way she complements Jack's role in the series. For me and my wife, Three's A Crowd belongs to our all time favorite comedies. When it was aired in Suriname (North of Brazil)- where we live - I videotaped a lot of episodes. But as we all now, videotapes are not a stable medium (especially not in the tropic), and I lost everything. Maybe someday some TV-executive will put it on DVD.
You Couldn't Wait to Get Your Hands on My Baby
Sylviastel2 April 2021
Warning: Spoilers
John Ritter's Jack Tripper finds love with Vicki Bradford (Mary Cadorette) and live in an apartment upstairs from Jack's Bistro. Robert Mandan's Mr Bradford and Vicki's father just bought the building from Mr Angelino. Alan Campbell plays surfer and cook Ez. Vicki's mother was played by Jessica Walter. A great solid cast but it only lasted a season. The same crew from threes company. The series could have lasted another season if given a chance. I remember when three's company ended and three's a crowd came and went. The series would have worked better with guest characters from the original series but they only got Richard Kline's Larry for an episode. I wished they showed Mary's musical theatre background. Jenilee Harrison and Joyce Dewitt could have made cameos. Despite John Ritter's background an experience as an actor band comic performer, the show couldn't completely rely on one person. I felt that the producers and writers expected success.
I belive what everybody belived they should of done
mike84131314 May 2003
When i look back at three's Company, I see one of the greatest comedys of all time. Every episode was a classic. With or without Somers (who was by far not the star of the show) the show was great. But when i stop and think about what would of been one of the greatest ideas for any show, was to have JAck and Janet realize there feelings for one another and fall in love. The show would of been REborn or it quiet possibly would of Started a very Succsessful spinoff. and what is funny is how i look at other peoples comments and think the same exact thing. Why didnt the Producers think about this. John and Joyce's chemestry was one of the best TV has ever seen....(Way better then with Somers was with Ritter). I could guarentee that the show or the spinoff would of Lasted alot longer and people would be very intrested in New jokes about MArriage..Parents and even Kids eventually. If you think about it.....the show lasted 7 years with just Dating....it could quiet easily lasted another 7 in the marriage state. John Ritters new show (which is quite good) could of had him and Joyce being the PArents of there daughters. If the actors and producers wanted to commit themselves...Three's Company could of lasted twice as long as it did...or its spinoff being just as classic as the original show.
Just think on what might it could of been! Its makes me sad.
Just think on what might it could of been! Its makes me sad.
Underrated, Not perfect but not bad either...
isabellacatgirl8 January 2022
I think it would have been better if they had written the Vicky Bradford character better. She's sorta unlikeable in some episodes and treats Jack so mean! His old roommates never treated him like that! She's sucha spoiled brat and I find her relationship with parents kinda corny. Mary Cadorette is a great actress but why Vicky? Overall it still holds up just because of John Ritter. He's still so funny and found him funnier in some episodes than in TC. Imo it's just Three's Company part 2 under a different name and different characters. Jack is still the main character and it's nice to see him find more success with his restaurant. EZ Taylor might very well be my favorite side character out of all the TC/TAC universe however. I wished they had him in some Three's Company episodes it would've been more awesome. They should have gone into a 2nd season and at least mentioned some of the older roommates. I think my favorite TAC episode is the last one,Star is Born with Stuart Pankin co-starring. Sad they ended it all that way with no explanation as to whatever became of Jack. Underrated show!
Why Janet and Jack wouldn't have worked
scs06 May 2005
I was a big fan of Joyce DeWitt on Three's Company, but a Jack and Janet spin off just wouldn't have worked for several reasons. First of all, over the course of the series the relationship between Jack and the female roommates moved strongly in the direction of a brother-sister relationship instead of the romantic one. To see these pseudo-siblings married might have seemed as out of place as a Brady Bunch spin off called "Greg Loves Marcia".
The second reason it would have failed is that "Three's Company" broke some social TV taboos in its day, so the successor should break some in its own day. Back in the 80s, the controversial trend was to dismiss the concept of marriage with the idea that you didn't need a contract from the government in order to be in a committed loving relationship (yet oddly enough the controversial trend in our current decade is the opposite belief) so having Jack shack up with a woman was the next logical step. Jack living with Janet, however, would not have made sense because both characters had previously expressed value in the concept of marriage and we've already seen them living together for the past 7 years. What would we gain, especially when her parents already like Jack! A third reason it wouldn't have worked is that the entire franchise was based upon the British "Man About the House" franchise. I understand the value in copying the core concept, but I don't know why the producers continued mirroring that franchise. (Legal reasons perhaps?) At any rate, "Three's A Crowd" was designed after "Robin's Nest" and trying to force Janet and her family into those roles would have been awkward. The bitter relationship between the parents of Jack's girlfriend was key to the reason behind their living together and it was also the source of a lot of comedy with the un-Father-in-Law. (It's odd. Vicki wanted this arrangement so that they were living together because they wanted to live together instead of being forced to live together. Apparently splitting up a relationship where two people share the same living environment, property, bills, and possibly kids is only difficult if that couple is married) We already met Janet's parents and they seemed fairly contented with each other... and fairly boring too.
I also think the producers wanted to get lots of fresh blood into the mix. If the female lead was Janet the name of the series might as well have been called "Three's Company Lite". (Though the series "Angel" did show that you can create a new series with a cast comprised completely from a subset of the cast of another show yet still have it feel like its own show) But all my arguments are a moot point considering that the series did fail.
The second reason it would have failed is that "Three's Company" broke some social TV taboos in its day, so the successor should break some in its own day. Back in the 80s, the controversial trend was to dismiss the concept of marriage with the idea that you didn't need a contract from the government in order to be in a committed loving relationship (yet oddly enough the controversial trend in our current decade is the opposite belief) so having Jack shack up with a woman was the next logical step. Jack living with Janet, however, would not have made sense because both characters had previously expressed value in the concept of marriage and we've already seen them living together for the past 7 years. What would we gain, especially when her parents already like Jack! A third reason it wouldn't have worked is that the entire franchise was based upon the British "Man About the House" franchise. I understand the value in copying the core concept, but I don't know why the producers continued mirroring that franchise. (Legal reasons perhaps?) At any rate, "Three's A Crowd" was designed after "Robin's Nest" and trying to force Janet and her family into those roles would have been awkward. The bitter relationship between the parents of Jack's girlfriend was key to the reason behind their living together and it was also the source of a lot of comedy with the un-Father-in-Law. (It's odd. Vicki wanted this arrangement so that they were living together because they wanted to live together instead of being forced to live together. Apparently splitting up a relationship where two people share the same living environment, property, bills, and possibly kids is only difficult if that couple is married) We already met Janet's parents and they seemed fairly contented with each other... and fairly boring too.
I also think the producers wanted to get lots of fresh blood into the mix. If the female lead was Janet the name of the series might as well have been called "Three's Company Lite". (Though the series "Angel" did show that you can create a new series with a cast comprised completely from a subset of the cast of another show yet still have it feel like its own show) But all my arguments are a moot point considering that the series did fail.
Why wasn't it a hit?
nitroofr8925 October 2002
I don't understand why this show wasn't a hit, It only lasted one season, In my opinion it was slightly funnier than Three's Company. I taped many episodes about three years ago when a local channel aired it in syndication. Oh well...
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
