Which of these 1 season train wrecks is more painful to watch?

I say both are equally unwatchable but if I had to pick one over the other, definitely The Ropers. Some characters just aren't strong enough to carry a whole show, and it's only more glaring when the supporting characters around them are even worse.

As for Three's a Crowd, it's painfully obvious (at least to me) that Jack Tripper was nothing without Janet & Chrissy to play off of. (Terri don't count to me). On his own he just flails around painfully like a fish out of water and it's difficult to watch.

And they gave him the most boring, insipid character (and actress) to play the one he finally settled down with.

i like the ropers

i like the ropers

I do too...but only on Three's Company. I think they're great characters, but just too weak to carry an entire show on their own.

They were equally bad.

Three's a Crowd would have been better with

Mr. Angelino instead of Mr. Bradford

Felipe as the chef instead of wacked out EZ

More appearances from Larry

Some from Furley

And a less dull girlfriend, one who had some personality and sass.

Three's a Crowd all the way. Ropers was geared toward seniors

Neither was painful to me. I enjoyed both equally, but Three's A Crowd is my favorite of the two.

The Ropers, but I loathe the Brookes family. They should have been written out.

The Ropers.
No comparison to me. I find Threes a crowd so annoying and predictable. It was a poor recycle of Threes Company. While the Ropers had issues like not having anything to do at least it was something different than a Threes Company wannabe show.

The Ropers, but I loathe the Brookes family. They should have been written out.
I agree. It was a mistake to make Mr Brookes Stanley's foil. It got old and stale after 2 episodes. Stanley was the foil for the kids on Threes Company. The reverse did not work so well.

The Ropers. I always loved the show and never got the hate. It got better as it went along, and you can tell that it influenced Married with Children precisely because it wasn't as bad as everyone said it was.

I absolutely loathe Three's A Crowd and cringe every time I try and watch an episode. I hated Vicky's father, and the relationship with Jack felt like a very bad imitation of Henry and Munroe on Too Close for Comfort. I couldn't stand Mary Cadorette, either, or E-Z, the corny Spicoli ripoff. Even then, that character was corny and dated.

The show was a major fail on all levels. We watched Jack the so many sexually mature and independent women, only to see him hook up with an immature flight attendant who seemed like a little girl who's never had sex before and keeps running to her mommy and daddy for help. Who wanted to see such a lame pairing?

I always felt the show missed an opportunity not going with one of Jack's more notable dates, like Greedy Gretchen or one of the others he'd blown his chances with, like the one in the episode where he gets zonked out on tranquilizers.

I agree. It was a mistake to make Mr Brookes Stanley's foil. It got old and stale after 2 episodes. Stanley was the foil for the kids on Threes Company. The reverse did not work so well.

That's why the show started focusing more on Helen's sister, who eventually became the foil and actually made Helen and Stanley stand more as a united front.

That's why the show started focusing more on Helen's sister, who eventually became the foil and actually made Helen and Stanley stand more as a united front.
Yes and Jenny added a friend and partner for Helen battling both her sister and Stanley.
The second half of the second season did get better with those changes but it was too late.

Three's a Crowd was the worst by a mile. The Ropers had a sense of fun and wackiness, and I loved Jeffrey Tambor and Louise Vallance (who was a Facebook friend of mine)--but Three's a Crowd was the most beige and personality-less sitcom of the '80s.

The Ropers had episodes with Mrs Roper Mother. No thank you

Three's a Crowd was the worst by a mile. The Ropers had a sense of fun and wackiness, and I loved Jeffrey Tambor and Louise Vallance (who was a Facebook friend of mine)--but Three's a Crowd was the most beige and personality-less sitcom of the '80s.
Thats a good point. Vicki was like a robot and Jack was not even funny anymore. No personality or anything to have empathy for the characters.

I would choose the Ropers over TAC. The writing for the Ropers was better at that moment. Stanley still needed a better foil than the snooty neighbor.

However, TAC was too much of a mess for me to enjoy. The Vicki character was way too dry and unfunny. Her meddling father-in-law was more outrageous than hilarious. I think that many people will leave a broken and dysfunctional relationship if one's parent is always butting in when not warranted.

Three's a Crowd would have been better with

Mr. Angelino instead of Mr. Bradford

Felipe as the chef instead of wacked out EZ

More appearances from Larry

Some from Furley

I agree! Mr. Angelino and Felipe would have been much better than Mr. Bradford and EZ. I think with the right casting, the show could have worked.

I hated Mr. Bradford on Three's a Crowd and I hated Brookes on The Ropers, but Three's a Crowd was slightly better mainly because of John Ritter.

I agree! Mr. Angelino and Felipe would have been much better than Mr. Bradford and EZ. I think with the right casting, the show could have worked.

I hated Mr. Bradford on Three's a Crowd and I hated Brookes on The Ropers, but Three's a Crowd was slightly better mainly because of John Ritter.

The only watchable episodes of the Ropers was the ones with Larry and Jack and the girls. All the other ones I cant watch

Which of these 1 season train wrecks is more painful to watch? Both as bad.......... Not at all as good as the originals!!

But if you want us to pick one,I would say Threes a crowd!

I preferred Three’s a Crowd. I agree that both spin-offs were inferior to Three’s Company.

After recently watching both shows again, I will say Three's a Crowd is the better show.

The Brookes were terrible on The Ropers and the Bradfords were terrible on Three's a Crowd, but Three's a Crowd had more watchable episodes than The Ropers.

The best episode of Three's a Crowd was "A Friend in Deed". It felt like an episode of Three's Company with the silly misunderstanding, the physical humor, and most importantly NO MR.BRADFORD. For some reason, he wasn't in the episode and it was great. :lol:

After recently watching both shows again, I will say Three's a Crowd is the better show.

The Brookes were terrible on The Ropers and the Bradfords were terrible on Three's a Crowd, but Three's a Crowd had more watchable episodes than The Ropers.

The best episode of Three's a Crowd was "A Friend in Deed". It felt like an episode of Three's Company with the silly misunderstanding, the physical humor, and most importantly NO MR.BRADFORD. For some reason, he wasn't in the episode and it was great. :lol:

You mean Jeffery Brooks was terrible

Every episode from both shows are great.

:lol:

The Ropers had episodes with Mrs Roper Mother. No thank youHehe I must have mi$$ed those episodes!!