But it none the less still managed to work due to the cast and characters? A lot of what made the show work in this regard I suppose, is that it was always supposed to be a farce and so nothing was ever supposed to be taken seriously. It really makes you wonder if it weren't for the efforts and talents of John Ritter, the show wouldn't have lasted as long as it did. He had the innate ability to sell even the worst jokes with his expressions and pratfalls. He also had amazing chemistry with Joyce DeWitt and could play off each others comic timing perfectly. Joyce was essentially, the straight-woman and the "glue" of the show.

Yeah I wouldn't say the writing was awful but more farcical and absurd such as stuff that wouldn't happen in real life (Jack and Chrissy mistakenly getting handcuffed or Jack fooling Furley he has a twin brother named Austin), it was all done to be fun for the viewers.

One of the best things the show never succumbed to was by adding a kid to the show to increase rating.

Yes, at times the writing was awful. You can have a face without the characters devolving into complete idiocy, and Chrissy did become a complete idiot (she didn't start off that way).

I know Joyce offered suggestions for improving the show, but the producers weren't interested.

And yet this show made Lucy a lifelong fan of John Ritter! Go figure!

Not awful but TOO many episodes involved a mixup or misunderstanding. Like somebody overheard some say something & they got the wrong idea. How many times did that happen??

They should've hired some new writers by Season 6 or 7 to try a different style of comedy while keeping John Ritter's physical comedy but obviously they didn't.

I think because the show was more plot driven than character driven led to the characters being out of character sometimes. Which resulted in some bad writing/scripts at times. The show was designed for laughs not substance or depth.

And yet this show made Lucy a lifelong fan of John Ritter! Go figure!

That's because they were both MASTERS of physical comedy. Especially John. I think Lucy saw in John someone who took physical comedy to ANOTHER level.

That's because they were both MASTERS of physical comedy. Especially John. I think Lucy saw in John someone who took physical comedy to ANOTHER level.

I think that's very true. I think both Lucy and John were not afraid of slapstick, and Lucy saw in John a kindred soul.

I think the writing was awful because it was just a dopey show. I can't believe it lasted as long as it did. The first couple of years (or however long she was on) the star of the show were Suzanne Somers' boobs. I never thought John Ritter was funny and to me his pratfalls were amateurish.


Not awful but TOO many episodes involved a mixup or misunderstanding. Like somebody overheard some say something & they got the wrong idea. How many times did that happen??


That's because the idea of the show was directly taken from a British comedy called "Man About the House". I don't know how much the gimmick was used on that show but on some British shows like "Father Dear Father" that was the plot for every show.

.

I know Joyce offered suggestions for improving the show, but the producers weren't interested.

What were her suggestions?

What were her suggestions?

I know Joyce mentioned that she would have liked to have had input on how her character developed. The producers weren't interested. She felt it was very much a "Good Ole Boys" production team (Ted Bergmann having been involved in TV since the days of the DuMont Network and the birth of television).

Near the end of the Three's Company run, Ted told Joyce that Janet was going to move away, and then her character was just... gone. Joyce felt very hurt by both this and the spin-off John and Ted hid from her.

But it's clear Ted and the other producers were not interested in Joyce's ideas and input. She was just there to act, until they felt Janet wasn't needed anymore.

A combination of bad writing, no character development, and an integral main star's departure midway through its run does not the perfect scripted TV show make, IMHO.

I know Joyce mentioned that she would have liked to have had input on how her character developed.

it's clear Ted and the other producers were not interested in Joyce's ideas and input. She was just there to act, until they felt Janet wasn't needed anymore.

I'm just curious about what her specific ideas were regarding future directions for Janet.

Throughout the show's run, we know that Janet runs (owns?) a plant shop, but also had an interest in dance.

The florist thing is kinda blah for story elements, but the dancer thing would've had possibilities.

Beyond those 2 things, I don't really see where the character could go.

I'm just curious about what her specific ideas were regarding future directions for Janet.

Throughout the show's run, we know that Janet runs (owns?) a plant shop, but also had an interest in dance.

The florist thing is kinda blah for story elements, but the dancer thing would've had possibilities.

Beyond those 2 things, I don't really see where the character could go.

I just checked Come and Knock on Our Door, the book written by Chris Mann, and here's what it says on page 36, regarding what Joyce wanted for her character. Specifically, she sought to tone down some of Janet's early tendency to "strip Jack of his manhood":

Yes, the writing was terrible at times and yes, the plots were repeated so many times with just slight variances. The show lasted as long as it did because of John Ritter, attractive women, and later on, Don Knotts. Without these elements, it’s a one season show, two at the most.

Yes, the writing was terrible at times and yes, the plots were repeated so many times with just slight variances. The show lasted as long as it did because of John Ritter, attractive women, and later on, Don Knotts. Without these elements, it’s a one season show, two at the most.

John should've milked the Jack Tripper character as long as he could've because he never had anywhere near that level of success again.

I know about 8 Simple Rules but that never reached near the heights of TC. Nor did it have the cultural impact of TC.

Hearts Afire seemed popular with both the TV audience and critics; kind of a smart politically-oriented sitcom put out by Linda Bloodworth-Thomason.

Kind of a different type of show for Ritter and maybe that's what he wanted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearts_Afire

I just checked Come and Knock on Our Door, the book written by Chris Mann, and here's what it says on page 36, regarding what Joyce wanted for her character. Specifically, she sought to tone down some of Janet's early tendency to "strip Jack of his manhood":

The Janet character always emasculated Jack so I guess she gave in:lol:

The Janet character always emasculated Jack so I guess she gave in:lol:

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

She actually says she did not, so maybe there would have been even more emasculation... who knows?

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

She actually says she did not, so maybe there would have been even more emasculation... who knows?

She threw Jack through the bathroom door in season 7, dove on top of him in season 6 and season 8. That is off the top of my head

Hearts Afire seemed popular with both the TV audience and critics; kind of a smart politically-oriented sitcom put out by Linda Bloodworth-Thomason.

Kind of a different type of show for Ritter and maybe that's what he wanted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearts_Afire

I was wondering how many times John Ritter tried to "play against type" (https://nypost.com/2005/04/23/laugh-til-it-hurts-ritters-true-story-has-tragic-ending/) in contrast to his nice guy comedic image. Somebody wrote in Yahoo (https://www.yahoo.com/news/3-roles-john-ritter-would-have-nailed-111895180002.html) about three roles that John could've nailed had he lived:
John du Pont, Foxcatcher
Considering his abundant pranks and pratfalls as Jack Tripper, Ritter could be cartoonish. Turn that down about eight notches, add a prosthetic nose, and the late performer could have been pretty convincing as the twisted multimillionaire heir and killer John du Pont. Director Bennett Miller has said he cast Steve Carell, with a strong background in comedy — namely TV comedy, like Ritter — for similar reasons.

Bernie Rose, Drive
It was sure exciting to see the neurotically comic Albert Brooks play against type as a cold-blooded gangster in the 2011 drama Drive. Just picture Ritter doing the same thing. This parody sketch from Late Night With Conan O’Brien, despite played for laughs, casts Ritter in a similarly sinister light.

Matt King, The Descendants
Not to knock George Clooney’s Oscar-nominated performance in Alexander Payne’s 2011 island-bound drama The Descendants, but Ritter could have really embodied the disillusioned dad role, opposite Shailene Woodley’s irritable daughter. While a few degrees more satirical, his role as a stuffy mall manager in Bad Santa, seen here, gives an idea of what might have been.

I know Joyce mentioned that she would have liked to have had input on how her character developed. The producers weren't interested. She felt it was very much a "Good Ole Boys" production team (Ted Bergmann having been involved in TV since the days of the DuMont Network and the birth of television).

Near the end of the Three's Company run, Ted told Joyce that Janet was going to move away, and then her character was just... gone. Joyce felt very hurt by both this and the spin-off John and Ted hid from her.

But it's clear Ted and the other producers were not interested in Joyce's ideas and input. She was just there to act, until they felt Janet wasn't needed anymore.

The producers didn't really seem to care about any of the people other than John because he was the star. The rest were disposable in their eyes. They didn't care about character growth, storylines did not have to make sense, past storylines and characters were just forgotten about. It was mindless tv.

Was one of the problems with Three's Company as a whole, was a tendency toward very broad writing and direction? In other words, there were lots of bug-eyed reaction shots and exaggerated emotion. Mr. Furley's character was a tale-tell example of this. The Ropers in comparison while not exactly subtle either, were written a little more dry.

Didn't Priscilla Barnes even say that early on she wanted out? I noticed that as time went on they started to dumb down Terri. I guess to make her more entertaining.

Didn't Priscilla Barnes even say that early on she wanted out? I noticed that as time went on they started to dumb down Terri. I guess to make her more entertaining.

Yeah back then she did but she appreciates the show now & has showed up to several reunions.

I think she wanted out back then because of some lewd behavior by one of the producers or something.

The producers didn't really seem to care about any of the people other than John because he was the star. The rest were disposable in their eyes. They didn't care about character growth, storylines did not have to make sense, past storylines and characters were just forgotten about. It was mindless tv.

I think part of the problem was producer Ted Bergmann. Bergmann got his start in the 1950s on the DuMont Network. Things at DuMont were very primitive: cheap sets, budget writing, hasty productions, very few special effects. By the 1980s, both Bergmann's production techniques and attitudes towards the female cast must have felt very old-fashioned.

(Of course, without DuMont, network television would have been vastly different).

Things like continuity were less important than they are today; they were going for laughs and weren't concerned if the show's internal consistency was maintained. And the women on the show were just not treated very well. So if Joyce objected to something, it wasn't addressed. If John objected, it would be dealt with.

Yes, at times the writing was awful. You can have a face without the characters devolving into complete idiocy, and Chrissy did become a complete idiot (she didn't start off that way).

I know Joyce offered suggestions for improving the show, but the producers weren't interested.

Most of the plots (https://www.quora.com/What-old-television-shows-have-not-aged-well/answer/Nicholas-Corwin) were extremely juvenile, even asinine, essentially very slight variations on the old tropes derived from French farces or cross-purpose talking.

Most of the plots (https://www.quora.com/What-old-television-shows-have-not-aged-well/answer/Nicholas-Corwin) were extremely juvenile, even asinine, essentially very slight variations on the old tropes derived from French farces or cross-purpose talking.

And that's why it was funny!

It's harder and harder to find a good comedy nowadays. Most of the new stuff is unwatchable now.

I was wondering how many times John Ritter tried to "play against type" (https://nypost.com/2005/04/23/laugh-til-it-hurts-ritters-true-story-has-tragic-ending/) in contrast to his nice guy comedic image. Somebody wrote in Yahoo (https://www.yahoo.com/news/3-roles-john-ritter-would-have-nailed-111895180002.html) about three roles that John could've nailed had he lived:



John Ritter was darn good at playing a bad guy in the movie "Lethal Vows" in fact he was evil.

I think the writing on the show was brilliant. I think All In The Family and Golden Girls and Roseanne had the best writers and I would put Threes Company in that mix. The plots were simple misunderstandings that were brilliantly written for big laughs. I think an episode like "The Older Woman" is brilliant. It still makes me laugh out loud. After season 5 the writing got stale and that happens in all sitcoms. We got recycled scripts like Macho Man and Look What I Found but that also happens on sitcoms with extended seasons.

YES. I'd also add juvenile, inane and cringe-inducing (ditto WBK, for that matter). And, btw, you're being generous using the word "often". TC was beneath the dignity of everyone associated with it, a fact of which they were well-aware, but, the money was nice, so whatever.

YES. I'd also add juvenile, inane and cringe-inducing (ditto WBK, for that matter). And, btw, you're being generous using the word "often". TC was beneath the dignity of everyone associated with it, a fact of which they were well-aware, but, the money was nice, so whatever.
You must not have a sense of humor.
What is your example of a well written comedy?

And that's why it was funny!

It's harder and harder to find a good comedy nowadays. Most of the new stuff is unwatchable now.
Today's comedies sucks.

As others have said (https://www.tellytalk.net/threads/threes-company.4311/post-104411), Three's Company is the type of show where you really have to care for the characters to tolerate (https://www.tellytalk.net/threads/threes-company.4311/post-104401) the otherwise paper thin and repetitive plots.

Every episode is great.

:lol:

I know Joyce mentioned that she would have liked to have had input on how her character developed. The producers weren't interested. She felt it was very much a "Good Ole Boys" production team (Ted Bergmann having been involved in TV since the days of the DuMont Network and the birth of television).

Near the end of the Three's Company run, Ted told Joyce that Janet was going to move away, and then her character was just... gone. Joyce felt very hurt by both this and the spin-off John and Ted hid from her.

But it's clear Ted and the other producers were not interested in Joyce's ideas and input. She was just there to act, until they felt Janet wasn't needed anymore.

There had to have been an impression (https://www.tellytalk.net/threads/threes-company.4311/post-104662) (whether it was truly accurate or not) that the producers (https://www.datalounge.com/thread/25335584-three%E2%80%99s-company-why-was-the-series-a-success-) such as Ted Bergmann were instigating a lot of the backstage problems. This could probably help shed some light on why Priscilla Barnes (https://www.datalounge.com/thread/22591202-priscilla-barnes-on-three-s-company-) didn't really enjoy her time making Three's Company due to the likely sexist (https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/threes-company-1977-to-1984.993241/#post-24883254), "boys' club" atmosphere on set.

The producers didn't really seem to care about any of the people other than John because he was the star. The rest were disposable in their eyes. They didn't care about character growth, storylines did not have to make sense, past storylines and characters were just forgotten about. It was mindless tv.

The producers also probably thought that Three's Company was able to withstand the departures of Norman Fell, Audra Lindley, and most significantly, Suzanne Somers and remain a top ten rated show, so what's not to say that it could also survive without Joyce DeWitt and Priscilla Barnes?

Not awful but TOO many episodes involved a mixup or misunderstanding. Like somebody overheard some say something & they got the wrong idea. How many times did that happen??

They should've hired some new writers by Season 6 or 7 to try a different style of comedy while keeping John Ritter's physical comedy but obviously they didn't.

Three's Company was a pretty formulaic show, for better or worse, when you get right down to it. The standard episode formula appeared to be: The landlord eavesdrops on a conversation that sounds vaguely sexual. Jack makes weird, awkward passes at his roommates when he’s not making weird, awkward passes at strangers down at the Regal Beagle.

John should've milked the Jack Tripper character as long as he could've because he never had anywhere near that level of success again.

I know about 8 Simple Rules but that never reached near the heights of TC. Nor did it have the cultural impact of TC.

Unfortunately, 8 Simple Rules is really only remembered now for being the project that John Ritter was working on at the time of his untimely death and helping launch the career of Kaley Cuoco, a few years before she reached even greater heights with The Big Bang Theory.

Yes, at times the writing was awful. You can have a face without the characters devolving into complete idiocy, and Chrissy did become a complete idiot (she didn't start off that way).

I know Joyce offered suggestions for improving the show, but the producers weren't interested.

The "Jack Bares All" (https://reviewingeverytvshowiown.blogspot.com/2016/10/threes-company-jack-bares-all.html) episode at the start of Season 6 (i.e. the episode that introduces Terri) is likely, a clear-cut example of how poor the writing could be on Three's Company:
Terri is an unsympathetic character for most of the episode. My issue is not really with the scene where she initially annoys Jack, since he's being unsympathetic there, while she's trying to act as a professional, albeit a somewhat snarky professional. It's actually worse when Terri tries to make up with Jack and further offends him, and here is a good example of the subpar writing. Even though Janet must've (or should've) told her that it's a platonic living arrangement, Terri acts seductively when she goes into the kitchen. (Powers says on the commentary that he wanted a Marilyn Monroe style.) And then, very un-Marilyn, she teases Jack about cooking, saying real men don't. Now, wouldn't Janet have told her that Jack is a chef? Beyond that, wouldn't it have come up that Jack is in the ER because he's a chef? (Not to mention he's wearing an apron and Felipe is also dressed for the kitchen.) And then when Furley tells Terri that Jack is gay, Terri makes things even worse by apologizing, trying to act tolerant but questioning why he'd have served in the Navy. OK, it's 1981, but that doesn't make this good character development, or good plot progression.

The "Jack Bares All" (https://reviewingeverytvshowiown.blogspot.com/2016/10/threes-company-jack-bares-all.html) episode at the start of Season 6 (i.e. the episode that introduces Terri) is likely, a clear-cut example of how poor the writing could be on Three's Company:
I don't disagree the writing was weak. But there is a bigger issue that is not mentioned. Teri does come off as crass towards Jack. Larry then tells Teri that Jack is depressed so she comes on to Jack to make him happy. Jack then refuses her advances. Jack for the entire series was always trying to get with the roommates but now he's declining the advances. But in the end Jack sort of gives in and then Teri attacks him. I never understood that dynamic. Many times the female roommates would turn on sex appeal and then when the man responds they do a 180 and attack the man.
Even John Ritter had an issue with the Lana character. Jack was a skirt chaser and why would Jack refuse the advances of an older cougar. He fell for an older woman in the episode "The Older Woman."

John Ritter was darn good at playing a bad guy in the movie "Lethal Vows" in fact he was evil.

The other day, I happened to catch (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/monogamy/id1540370040?i=1000669791434) an episode (]https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Recap/LawAndOrderSpecialVictimsUnitS3E11Monogamy) of Law & Order: SVU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_%26_Order:_Special_Victims_Unit_season_3#Guest_stars) featuring John Ritter (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocX2flVrYGQ) from back in 2002 (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0629686/), where he played a man (https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Richard_Manning) who was accused of beating his wife (http://www.lawandorderpodcast.com/podcast-episodes/2018/10/15/monogamy), cutting (https://www.reddit.com/r/SVU/comments/b69zvz/comment/ejj8xie/) her unborn baby out from her womb, and then killing the baby (https://www.nbc.com/nbc-insider/john-ritter-svu-baby-killer). :eek: