She is currently on Dancing With The Stars and she said twice that she was the star of Three's Company. I don't think so Suzanne. You, John, and Joyce were the stars equally, not just you.

I watched 2 different interviews of her. In one, she was doing a cooking demo and talking about Irish women not being great cooks. Then in another interview, she claimed she was somewhat Irish. I think she contradicted herself.

In all the interviews she has done over the years, she never mentions her time on Step By Step. Why? The show lasted for a good 7 seasons.

Im not trying to bash her, Im just being observant. I think she is doing great things in the field of health and well being.

I see she is still delusional, she was never the star of Three's Company lol

In all the interviews she has done over the years, she never mentions her time on Step By Step. Why? The show lasted for a good 7 seasons.

During those interviews, how many times was she asked about Step By Step? I suspect that anyone conducting an interview with her would be primarily focused on TC and if they don't ask then why talk about it? If she has been asked and refused to answer or tried to change the subject then I would also be asking why?

When I think about the "me me me" attitude Baby Boomers seem to personify, Suzanne Somers is the first person that comes to mind.

Sometimes I wonder how Alan Hamel has managed to stay married to Suzanne for so long. Suzanne seems a bit high-maintenance, but I guess Alan is able to keep up!

She is currently on Dancing With The Stars and she said twice that she was the star of Three's Company. I don't think so Suzanne. You, John, and Joyce were the stars equally, not just you.

I agree, I think Suzanne was part of an ensemble cast where all three of them were the "stars." When asked about this on her Facebook page, here was Suzanne's response, which I thought wasn't too bad.

I think some just like to jump down everything that Suzanne has to say. Suzanne was a very important part of the show and had a lot to do with the show's success. In the end John was the one cast member who couldn't have been replaced but if Joyce had come out and said that she was the star of TC, I don't think many would have commented on it. They were all stars on the show.

if Joyce had come out and said that she was the star of TC, I don't think many would have commented on it. They were all stars on the show.

I agree! If Suzanne had never left over money issues, and the three of them had finished out the eight years, we would not blink an eye at this wording.

Honestly, even people who say John was the star---of course he was a huge part of it, but take a look at Three's A Crowd and tell me that. John alone could not have carried it. The show was meant to be an ensemble piece, and each of the trio should get credit for "starring."

She should have said a star or co-star. I think she was more of a star then Joyce when they were working together,but Joyce seemed to improve after Suzanne left.Alan Hamel has not been on the radar since 1980. I consider him to be a gold digger and lets Suzanne pay the bills.Both of them have a net worth of 100 million,I think that $100 million is all Suzanne's,since it is hard to believe they each have a net worth exactly the same.Alan Hamel made Suzanne get fired from the show,since he was her manager at the time and he was the one that demanded they give her more money and he did not know what he was doing. She could have had a chance to get more money,if she was properly managed by her previous manager that she had,but fired him after all he did for her,to have Alan Hamel manage her. If Alan Hamel has done anything good,or even fair, after 1980,please post a reply to let us know

I agree! If Suzanne had never left over money issues, and the three of them had finished out the eight years, we would not blink an eye at this wording.

Honestly, even people who say John was the star---of course he was a huge part of it, but take a look at Three's A Crowd and tell me that. John alone could not have carried it. The show was meant to be an ensemble piece, and each of the trio should get credit for "starring."


Because it wasn't a new comedy, it was season 9 of Three's Company

She should have said a star or co-star. I think she was more of a star then Joyce when they were working together,but Joyce seemed to improve after Suzanne left.
Yeah that.

Because it wasn't a new comedy, it was season 9 of Three's Company

That just proves my point. If it was season 9 of Three's Company, and if John Ritter was the big star of Three's Company, then why did it fail?

Because the other members of the ENSEMBLE were not there. Period.

That just proves my point. If it was season 9 of Three's Company, and if John Ritter was the big star of Three's Company, then why did it fail?

Because the other members of the ENSEMBLE were not there. Period.


Because it was a NEW JACK, Business owner, settled down, more mature

That just proves my point. If it was season 9 of Three's Company, and if John Ritter was the big star of Three's Company, then why did it fail?

Because the other members of the ENSEMBLE were not there. Period.
Ehhh I wouldnt say it failed because of the lack of Janet and Terri, many factors led to it, season 8 of TC was already its lowest and although The Cosby Show premiered that same year but took time to find its footing, many other sitcoms were struggling with hour long shows becoming popular.

I myself liked TAC just as much as TC, the characters were just as zany, it was ABC's lack of faith in not giving the show more time to pick up that they went ahead and pulled the plug on TAC to bring over an abysmal 8th season of Diff'rent Strokes.

Ehhh I wouldnt say it failed because of the lack of Janet and Terri, many factors led to it, season 8 of TC was already its lowest and although The Cosby Show premiered that same year but took time to find its footing, many other sitcoms were struggling with hour long shows becoming popular.

I myself liked TAC just as much as TC, the characters were just as zany, it was ABC's lack of faith in not giving the show more time to pick up that they went ahead and pulled the plug on TAC to bring over an abysmal 8th season of Diff'rent Strokes.

The cosby show aired on Thursday Night and TAC aired on Tuesday

The cosby show aired on Thursday Night and TAC aired on Tuesday
Yeah and plus CS was on NBC which I believe didn't have anything to lose since they were starting up their Thursday night comedy block, ABC was probably desperate for a hit and TAC fell victim of getting the axe.

Yeah and plus CS was on NBC which I believe didn't have anything to lose since they were starting up their Thursday night comedy block, ABC was probably desperate for a hit and TAC fell victim of getting the axe.


Not sure why ABC had high expectations for TAC since the last season of TC was not that good in the ratings

Not sure why ABC had high expectations for TAC since the last season of TC was not that good in the ratings

Yeah.

But keep in mind ABC was willing to renew it for another 13 episodes, but John didn't want to go on unless they renewed it for another full season.

Maybe after it was all said and done the only reason it ended was that John didn't want to go on anymore. 9 seasons of pratfalls is a lot. If John just wanted it to end I don't blame him.

That just proves my point. If it was season 9 of Three's Company, and if John Ritter was the big star of Three's Company, then why did it fail?

Because the other members of the ENSEMBLE were not there. Period.

I agree with you. I don't enjoy the episodes after Suzanne left and usually tune it out. The show worked best when they were all three together. Jennilee Harrison could not do comedy, Priscilla Barnes was just adequate. The years without Suzanne, the magic was gone. And Three's a Crowd was just a snoozer.

Yeah.

But keep in mind ABC was willing to renew it for another 13 episodes, but John didn't want to go on unless they renewed it for another full season.

Maybe after it was all said and done the only reason it ended was that John didn't want to go on anymore. 9 seasons of pratfalls is a lot. If John just wanted it to end I don't blame him.


I don't blame him, that means the show would not have started until the spring which was pointless since it would not have been no guarantee it would be picked up.

Maybe after it was all said and done the only reason it ended was that John didn't want to go on anymore. 9 seasons of pratfalls is a lot. If John just wanted it to end I don't blame him.

You make a good point. I think it was a combination of the show (and Jack Tripper) running its course, the absence of a true ensemble cast, and the fact that TAC was not farce, which was what made Three's Company great.

I think John Ritter should have been alive during the silent movie era. He was too good for this modern world that seems to pooh-pooh physical comedy. He was a genius, and the farce format was perfect for him.

You make a good point. I think it was a combination of the show (and Jack Tripper) running its course, the absence of a true ensemble cast, and the fact that TAC was not farce, which was what made Three's Company great.

I think John Ritter should have been alive during the silent movie era. He was too good for this modern world that seems to pooh-pooh physical comedy. He was a genius, and the farce format was perfect for him.

10 seasons of Jack Tripper would have been too many anyway.

It's good to be on a hit show, but I'm sure come 1985 John Ritter and a lot of other people were thinking, move on already!

It really is remarkable that Ritter didn't get typecast as Tripper. He got to do a lot of serious roles post-Three's.

I don't blame him, that means the show would not have started until the spring which was pointless since it would not have been no guarantee it would be picked up.

No, it would have started in the fall with a guarantee of half a season. A fall commitment of 13 episodes was routine back then, and even today. I don't buy that as an excuse, though. I think it was just ABC giving John a story to tell so he could have a graceful exit from the show without the embarrassment of his show being canceled. Networks back in those days were frequently allowing a story for the press to protect their stars from the embarrassment of being cancelled. On its face, the story makes no sense. They were supposedly offering 13 additional weeks to get the ratings up, and the summer in between so they could work on fixing the show before returning in the fall so it could have another chance. And he says no??? "No, I don't want that opportunity. I'd prefer you end the show now, ABC, rather than giving us yet another chance to make it work." That just seems implausible to me. The show had already been given a full year. Three's Company had fallen in the ratings. ABC gave the show a lifeline (Three's a Crowd), with another full year to get the ratings up, but it didn't work, so the show was cancelled.

In this article, which says the ratings for Three's a Crowd had dropped since Three's Company, it sounds like ABC clearly pulled the plug and John had to accept their decision. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19850511&id=VuIhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=U2IEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1443,6719177&hl=en

Here's another article where Robert Mandan was asking viewers to send letters to ABC, hoping to change their minds about cancelling the show: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19850609&id=NyZSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vTUNAAAAIBAJ&pg=2477,5095826&hl=en

And another about the show's cancelation: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1665&dat=19850506&id=wLsbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TE4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6787,1146921&hl=en

TC tanked in season 8 because 1) the writing went downhill and story ideas started being repeated, 2) the cast wasn't into it any more, as can be seen from the ATM episode on, and 3) it was killed by The A-Team. When TAC started, ABC handled 2), but not 1) or 3), resulting in ratings disaster.

No, it would have started in the fall with a guarantee of half a season. A fall commitment of 13 episodes was routine back then, and even today. I don't buy that as an excuse, though. I think it was just ABC giving John a story to tell so he could have a graceful exit from the show without the embarrassment of his show being canceled. Networks back in those days were frequently allowing a story for the press to protect their stars from the embarrassment of being cancelled. On its face, the story makes no sense. They were supposedly offering 13 additional weeks to get the ratings up, and the summer in between so they could work on fixing the show before returning in the fall so it could have another chance. And he says no??? "No, I don't want that opportunity. I'd prefer you end the show now, ABC, rather than giving us yet another chance to make it work." That just seems implausible to me. The show had already been given a full year. Three's Company had fallen in the ratings. ABC gave the show a lifeline (Three's a Crowd), with another full year to get the ratings up, but it didn't work, so the show was cancelled.

In this article, which says the ratings for Three's a Crowd had dropped since Three's Company, it sounds like ABC clearly pulled the plug and John had to accept their decision. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19850511&id=VuIhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=U2IEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1443,6719177&hl=en

Here's another article where Robert Mandan was asking viewers to send letters to ABC, hoping to change their minds about cancelling the show: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19850609&id=NyZSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vTUNAAAAIBAJ&pg=2477,5095826&hl=en

And another about the show's cancelation: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1665&dat=19850506&id=wLsbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TE4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6787,1146921&hl=en
Back in the 80's I don't even remember hearing anything about ABC offering a 13 episode commitment. The newspaper headlines clearly stated the show was cancelled. I remember reading what they were going to plan for the coming season included Jack getting married. And I think it was in a TV Guide article where Robert Mandan blasted ABC for cancelling the show.

No, it would have started in the fall with a guarantee of half a season. A fall commitment of 13 episodes was routine back then, and even today. I don't buy that as an excuse, though. I think it was just ABC giving John a story to tell so he could have a graceful exit from the show without the embarrassment of his show being canceled. Networks back in those days were frequently allowing a story for the press to protect their stars from the embarrassment of being cancelled. On its face, the story makes no sense. They were supposedly offering 13 additional weeks to get the ratings up, and the summer in between so they could work on fixing the show before returning in the fall so it could have another chance. And he says no??? "No, I don't want that opportunity. I'd prefer you end the show now, ABC, rather than giving us yet another chance to make it work." That just seems implausible to me. The show had already been given a full year. Three's Company had fallen in the ratings. ABC gave the show a lifeline (Three's a Crowd), with another full year to get the ratings up, but it didn't work, so the show was cancelled.

In this article, which says the ratings for Three's a Crowd had dropped since Three's Company, it sounds like ABC clearly pulled the plug and John had to accept their decision. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19850511&id=VuIhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=U2IEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1443,6719177&hl=en

Here's another article where Robert Mandan was asking viewers to send letters to ABC, hoping to change their minds about cancelling the show: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19850609&id=NyZSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vTUNAAAAIBAJ&pg=2477,5095826&hl=en

And another about the show's cancelation: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1665&dat=19850506&id=wLsbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TE4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6787,1146921&hl=en


You're probably right. I should say that I just got it from the Wikipedia article that ABC was going to offer a 13 week episode season to John but he turned it down.

Since anybody can edit Wikipedia, that could just be one big untruth. Or like you said, maybe it was just something they could say after the fact to save face.

The reality is probably ABC didn't want to renew it. If they weren't going to give Three's Company another season even though they finished 1983-84 ranked 31st, I guess it's all but certain they weren't going to renew "Three's A Crowd' after it placed 38th for 1984-85.


It's kind of sad though when you think about it. Why didn't they just move Three's Company for Season 9 to a different night rather than telling the producers they were going to flat out cancel it after Season 8. I mean lots of shows that placed below 31st get renewed.

I wonder why ABC dudn't consider the possibility of moving Three's Company away from the Tuesdays at 9PM/8 Central slot. Granted, the show was probably getting dull, but that didn't stop networks from renewing shows before.

I guess there must have been somebody at ABC that didn't really like the show, and was only willing to stick with it as long as it was in the top ten, but at the first sign of trouble they were going to end it.

Another reason for TAC's failure is how TC ended.
It was for me anyway. I refused to give it a chance.

I didn't spend years invested in TC's to see the finale mostly be about Jack & Vicky. We viewers wanted to see closure for ALL the characters. Of course, it was understandable that Chrissy couldn't be a part of it.

As for Season 8 ratings, the decline in TC actually started halfway through season 7. It was after Jack opened his restaurant early in Season 7, that the plots started to repeat themselves.

There was also no character growth. Jack still doesn't have a car and Janet still can't cook.

Another reason for TAC's failure is how TC ended.
It was for me anyway. I refused to give it a chance.

I didn't spend years invested in TC's to see the finale mostly be about Jack & Vicky. We viewers wanted to see closure for ALL the characters. Of course, it was understandable that Chrissy couldn't be a part of it.

As for Season 8 ratings, the decline in TC actually started halfway through season 7. It was after Jack opened his restaurant early in Season 7, that the plots started to repeat themselves.

There was also no character growth. Jack still doesn't have a car and Janet still can't cook.
They made us wait until the fall to see the final episode. I'm still mad about that. ABC was just playing us. They wanted to use the final episode to promote TAC.

Yeah, I agree with you about the ending of Three's Company. I watched it recently and was amazed all over again at how Janet was reduced to worrying that Jack made nice with a girl he'd been seeing for a couple weeks not only on her WEDDING DAY but also DURING her actual ceremony!! At that point in the show I was used to sort of suspending disbelief, but that was too far a stretch. It was insulting to flatten the characters of Janet and Terri to nothing more than cheerleaders for Jack's love life in the final episodes. That went against everything in the series we had seen up until that point. I don't blame people for being bitter.

I would love to meet a girl like Vicky

Willing to move in and share the expenses and not interested in marriage??

LOL Jack was too stupid to realize how good he had it

I would love to meet a girl like Vicky

Willing to move in and share the expenses and not interested in marriage??

LOL Jack was too stupid to realize how good he had it
Larry would have no regrets. lol

Larry would have no regrets. lol


when I am on dating sites all I see is woman looking for marriage. lol


No VICKYS LOL

No, it would have started in the fall with a guarantee of half a season. A fall commitment of 13 episodes was routine back then, and even today. I don't buy that as an excuse, though. I think it was just ABC giving John a story to tell so he could have a graceful exit from the show without the embarrassment of his show being canceled. Networks back in those days were frequently allowing a story for the press to protect their stars from the embarrassment of being cancelled. On its face, the story makes no sense. They were supposedly offering 13 additional weeks to get the ratings up, and the summer in between so they could work on fixing the show before returning in the fall so it could have another chance. And he says no??? "No, I don't want that opportunity. I'd prefer you end the show now, ABC, rather than giving us yet another chance to make it work." That just seems implausible to me. The show had already been given a full year. Three's Company had fallen in the ratings. ABC gave the show a lifeline (Three's a Crowd), with another full year to get the ratings up, but it didn't work, so the show was cancelled.

In this article, which says the ratings for Three's a Crowd had dropped since Three's Company, it sounds like ABC clearly pulled the plug and John had to accept their decision. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1144&dat=19850511&id=VuIhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=U2IEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1443,6719177&hl=en

Here's another article where Robert Mandan was asking viewers to send letters to ABC, hoping to change their minds about cancelling the show: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19850609&id=NyZSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vTUNAAAAIBAJ&pg=2477,5095826&hl=en

And another about the show's cancelation: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1665&dat=19850506&id=wLsbAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TE4EAAAAIBAJ&pg=6787,1146921&hl=en
I never kept tabs on Hollywood trade papers as a kid that I never knew TAC was canceled until one day I tune in and find another show in its place.

The reality is probably ABC didn't want to renew it. If they weren't going to give Three's Company another season even though they finished 1983-84 ranked 31st, I guess it's all but certain they weren't going to renew "Three's A Crowd' after it placed 38th for 1984-85.

The networks ultimately are looking for hit shows. If they have a fairly new show on their schedule, that they have confidence in, that winds up in 38th place for the season, they might assume its still finding its audience and renew it. Heck, Cheers was at the very bottom of the ratings its first year, 1982-83 (74th place), but NBC executives knew it was a quality show with hit potential; it just needed to be discovered. They renewed it and in the next couple years it found its audience: it went from 74th place, to 35th, to 12th, then into the top ten for the rest of its long run which ended in 1993 and finished in 8th place. But with a long-running series like TC/TAC, that had already found its audience years before, they are looking at what is happening to audience share and making a prediction of where it will be in a year.

In the case of TC/TAC, they could see the show was well past its prime and the ratings were in decline. Not even a major format change was able to reverse that trend. In spite of the huge makeover, viewers continued falling a way. There was not a question of the show finding an audience. That audience had already been found years before: everyone already knew Jack Tripper, but the show was long past its prime viewers were moving on.

Archie Bunker's Place was in 22nd place when it got cancelled in 1983. But it was up against weak competition, and had dropped from 12th place the year before and had lost 15% of its ratings share year to year. It was also a big drop in ratings from its lead-in, 60 Minutes, which was the number one rated show. Network programmers expect to build an audience throughout the night, not lose audience. This was the 13th season for Archie Bunker since 1971 (nine of All in the Family; four of Archie Bunker's Place), and CBS knew the glory days were over and the show would fall further the next year. Lucille Ball was in 29th place in 1974 when Here's Lucy was pulled off the schedule. The show was still a hit according to those numbers. But she was in her 23rd television season since 1951 (I Love Lucy/Lucy-Desi Comedy Hour; The Lucy Show; Here's Lucy), 26th since 1948 if you include prior CBS radio series (My Favorite Husband), and had always been in the top ten until two years earlier. But in the last few seasons, it had gone from 3rd place to 10th to 15th and now 29th. The trend was clear. And this was another situation where the network allowed its star to bow out gracefully with a story that she was exhausted from promoting her new movie, so she would not return to her show. But rumor has it that CBS decided to cancel the show.

The Doris Day Show the year before is another example. It had gone from 10th to 16th to 23rd to 29th place in 1973 (and a big ratings drop of it's lead-in). The official story is that Doris Day had a five-year commitment which was now completed, and that she never wanted to do more than five years. That may be true, but it's also supposedly true that CBS had no intention of bringing the show back, regardless of her feelings. These are just a few examples.

Back in the 80's I don't even remember hearing anything about ABC offering a 13 episode commitment. The newspaper headlines clearly stated the show was cancelled. I remember reading what they were going to plan for the coming season included Jack getting married. And I think it was in a TV Guide article where Robert Mandan blasted ABC for cancelling the show.

Your memory seems to be correct. In that first link I posted, John Ritter stated that he had intentions of having Jack and Vicky get married the next season.