https://www.looper.com/843770/the-threes-company-finale-still-bothers-fans-to-this-day/

Three's Company was too focused on setting up a spin-off to end properly

https://www.looper.com/img/gallery/the-threes-company-finale-still-bothers-fans-to-this-day/threes-company-was-too-focused-on-setting-up-a-spin-off-to-end-properly-1650983412.webp

"Three's Company" said goodbye to the world in a long form fashion. "Friends & Lovers," along with two previous episodes, "Cupid Works Overtime" and "The Heiress," serve as a four-part conclusion to the show — and an attempted launching pad for "Three's a Crowd," the show's spin-off. To do this, the happy home of the three roommates had to be deconstructed.

To wit, the show's last few episodes see Jack fall in love with stewardess Vicky Bradford (Mary Cadorette), the daughter of a protective and rich executive, as Janet finds romance with art collector Phillip Dawson (David Ruprecht). While Janet and Phillip marry in the gang's apartment in the first part of the finale, Jack fails to convince Vicky to accept his proposal — she's too emotionally scarred by her parent's terrible divorce to say yes — so they instead agree to share an apartment together. Terri, meanwhile, declares she's moving to Hawaii. The roommates move out with Mr. Furley's help, and Jack and Vicky settle into their respective new digs. Very little of the final episode focuses on either Janet or Terri, with Terri's story in this final long storytelling arc being remarkably minimal.

That final scene of the show tries very hard to make viewers care about Jack and Vicky's future, but the flat chemistry between the characters draws a negative reaction, and Vicky's dad (Robert Mandan) comes off as abrasive in an unentertaining way. Ratings for "Three's a Crowd" would later back up this notion. While the roommate's futures seem bright as they move toward the sunset, fans proved to be reluctant to follow them into it.

Three's a Crowd never replicated Three's Company's success

https://www.looper.com/img/gallery/the-threes-company-finale-still-bothers-fans-to-this-day/threes-a-crowd-never-replicated-threes-companys-success-1650983412.webp

Fans of the show roundly consider the show's series finale to be a disappointment and a major shark jump, especially its final scene. For example, IMDb user nickb-22813 (https://www.imdb.com/review/rw7783983/?ref_=tt_urv) states that "Mary Cadorette's portrayal of Vicki's explanation of why she's afraid to get married comes off fake and unreal. Plus, the comedic chemistry between her and Jack just is not there."

Contemporary viewers on message boards such as Lipstick Alley (https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/should-jack-and-janet-have-gotten-married-at-the-end-of-threes-company.4588955/), Sitcoms Online (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=11866) and Primetimer (https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/89009-threes-company/?do=findComment&comment=5497889) express their dislike of the show's finale, calling it rushed, with posters naming everything from Jack and Vicky's insta-relationship, to Phillip and Janet's sudden marriage, to the way Terri's storyline feels like an afterthought, to the obvious way the episode's plot sets up its spin-off. Some hoped that Chrissy would return for some form of closure, and that the roommates would stay together. Many fans even stated that they hoped the show would pay off Jack and Janet's ever-simmering attraction to one another in the show's final episodes, instead of pairing them off with new people ... which certainly would've been more satisfying, since they were the two characters who stayed in the show from the beginning to the end.

The "Three's Company" finale haunted "Three's a Crowd" when it debuted on ABC in 1984. Clearly, fans didn't seem to want to see Jack Tripper in a committed relationship — well, unless it was with Janet — or maybe they too just thought Ritter's chemistry with Cadorette was nonexistent. Either way, unlike "Three's Company," it drew middling ratings (per Rating Graph (https://www.ratingraph.com/tv-shows/three-s-a-crowd-ratings-3023/)) and only lasted a single season of 20 episodes before being cancelled in 1985. It proved a sad coda to a series that did so much for ABC.

Three's Company never had a finale to transition to Three's a Crowd

Three's Company never had a finale to transition to Three's a Crowd

But that's what the finale was all about.

A transition to Three's a Crowd!

But that's what the finale was all about.

A transition to Three's a Crowd!

Transition Hour to close out the remaining Three's Company characters

The producers of that show never really cared about the fans, characters and even cast other than John Ritter. So it shouldn't be surprising that the shows last episode was lame.

They even let the fans rott by not showing the final in May but waiting until September a week before TAC premiered.

The last episode I saw of Threes Company was Jack in bed with Chrissy I think and then it ended........

Very sad..........

But that's what the finale was all about.

A transition to Three's a Crowd!

OsOyEz85-5w

ALL NEW! Here is the close to Three's Company (https://web.archive.org/web/20061031124150/http://www.jumptheshark.com/t/threescompany.htm)'s Season Finale (https://jacksonupperco.com/2015/07/28/the-ten-best-threes-company-episodes-of-season-eight/) Cliffhanger in 1984. The show would start a ninth season in September and immediately changed it's title (https://web.archive.org/web/20061031125202/http://www.jumptheshark.com/t/threesacrowd.htm) after (https://jacksonupperco.com/2015/07/29/when-three-became-a-crowd-a-look-at-the-last-threes-company-spin-off/) its season premiere. Also included are a trailer for Finders Keepers and plugs for Honda. Then it's a preview for the upcoming season and finale a promo for ABC Sports.

I agree it was a quick send off to transition to the spin off. However at least there was an ending. There are countless other sitcoms that ran longer that had no send off like The Jeffersons, etc. Good Times also had a quick send off. There is no good way since its a sitcom and supposed to be funny. Alice also had a quick rather abrupt ending for a 10 year run. But I would rather have a bad ending compared to no ending at all when a sitcom gets cancelled and there was no ending in the script.

I agree it was a quick send off to transition to the spin off. However at least there was an ending. There are countless other sitcoms that ran longer that had no send off like The Jeffersons, etc. Good Times also had a quick send off. There is no good way since its a sitcom and supposed to be funny. Alice also had a quick rather abrupt ending for a 10 year run. But I would rather have a bad ending compared to no ending at all when a sitcom gets cancelled and there was no ending in the script.

The biggest sitcom travesty was the Jeffersons not having a finale to tie up loose ends. Same with Gilligan's Island! No finale there either.

I agree it was a quick send off to transition to the spin off. However at least there was an ending. There are countless other sitcoms that ran longer that had no send off like The Jeffersons, etc. Good Times also had a quick send off. There is no good way since its a sitcom and supposed to be funny. Alice also had a quick rather abrupt ending for a 10 year run. But I would rather have a bad ending compared to no ending at all when a sitcom gets cancelled and there was no ending in the script.

It was quick because they were setting everything up for Three's a Crowd.

I enjoyed quite a few episodes of the 8th season of Three's Company. The ending was a bit rushed. I would have liked a few more episodes with Janet and Phil before they said their I do's. But overall, I was happy. I thought Janet or Jack should have been the last one to turn the lights out, not Terri. They got that wrong in the TV Movie along with some other stuff that I won't go into. Having seen shows like "Who's The Boss" that went on far too long to the point where they are bringing in useless characters like Billy. I am glad Three's Company went out like it did. The second part of "Friends and Lovers" where Jack and Vicky go back to the apartment for bedtime is some of the funniest stuff I ever saw John Ritter do. I remember watching it all those years ago and really laughing MAO. Instead of Jack working his line " hey, how about tonight" to girls, he had one there ready to go and he was nervous as a long-tail cat in a room full of rocking chairs.

I enjoyed quite a few episodes of the 8th season of Three's Company. The ending was a bit rushed. I would have liked a few more episodes with Janet and Phil before they said their I do's. But overall, I was happy. I thought Janet or Jack should have been the last one to turn the lights out, not Terri. They got that wrong in the TV Movie along with some other stuff that I won't go into. Having seen shows like "Who's The Boss" that went on far too long to the point where they are bringing in useless characters like Billy. I am glad Three's Company went out like it did. The second part of "Friends and Lovers" where Jack and Vicky go back to the apartment for bedtime is some the funniest stuff I ever saw John Ritter do. I remember watching it all those years ago and really laughing MAO. Instead of Jack working his line " hey, how about tonight" to girls, he had one there ready to go and he was nervous as a long-tail cat in a room full of rocking chairs.


should have been Janet since she was there the longest

I was just 8 years old when I saw the finale and I didn't put much thought into it, my dad watched the show so I was getting into it too via reruns. I just accepted the trio went their separate ways and Mr. Bradford would be Jack's antagonist, that's it life moves on.

Regarding Three's A Crowd I enjoyed the series and found it a better spin-off than The Roger's. John Ritter was giving it 100% always, the character of EZ Taylor was always funny and while Vicki was the straight man I wasn't watching the show for her but for Jack.

The producers of that show never really cared about the fans, characters and even cast other than John Ritter. So it shouldn't be surprising that the shows last episode was lame.

The producers screwed over The Ropers, then Chrissy, then Cindy, then Lana, and finally Janet, Terri, and Mr. Furley.

I read they offered Larry a supporting role on Three's a Crowd but he turned it down, because another show offered him to star in his own sitcom that ended up not getting picked up.

The Ropers and Cindy should at least been invited to the wedding during the finale.

The producers screwed over The Ropers, then Chrissy, then Cindy, then Lana, and finally Janet, Terri, and Mr. Furley.

I read they offered Larry a supporting role on Three's a Crowd but he turned it down, because another show offered him to star in his own sitcom that ended up not getting picked up.

The Ropers and Cindy should at least been invited to the wedding during the finale.

It wasnt a finale

It does not matter that it was not a "finale". It was the end of a long running beloved show and it was tossed off in a half assed uncaring manner. Which is not surprising considering the show's history of treating it's character's, star's and fan's.

It does not matter that it was not a "finale". It was the end of a long running beloved show and it was tossed off in a half assed uncaring manner. Which is not surprising considering the show's history of treating it's character's, star's and fan's.
But is that not how most sitcoms end?
The actors people want to show up will have to get paid or not under contract. They never invite them back.
Actually Threes Company had a better ending than most sitcoms. One girl finally gets married and Jack falls in love and moves out.
Alice ran longer than Threes Company and all they did was play highlights of 10 years.
There are never good endings for sitcoms and people trash every one.

The producers screwed over The Ropers, then Chrissy, then Cindy, then Lana, and finally Janet, Terri, and Mr. Furley.

I read they offered Larry a supporting role on Three's a Crowd but he turned it down, because another show offered him to star in his own sitcom that ended up not getting picked up.

The Ropers and Cindy should at least been invited to the wedding during the finale.

It sucks for Larry that his show did not get picked up but he was smart to turn it down, I doubt he would have done much on Three's a Crowd anyway

It sucks for Larry that his show did not get picked up but he was smart to turn it down, I doubt he would have done much on Three's a Crowd anyway

True because once a guy settles down he sees his friends less and less so it wouldnt be any need for Larry

It sucks for Larry that his show did not get picked up but he was smart to turn it down, I doubt he would have done much on Three's a Crowd anyway

Larry guest stars in episode 18 and it's one of the better episodes of Three's a Crowd.

I always loved the Jack and Larry scenes.

Larry guest stars in episode 18 and it's one of the better episodes of Three's a Crowd.

I always loved the Jack and Larry scenes.
And when Larry guest starred on The Ropers in season 1 was also one of the better episodes.

I agree it was a quick send off to transition to the spin off. However at least there was an ending. There are countless other sitcoms that ran longer that had no send off like The Jeffersons, etc. Good Times also had a quick send off. There is no good way since its a sitcom and supposed to be funny. Alice also had a quick rather abrupt ending for a 10 year run. But I would rather have a bad ending compared to no ending at all when a sitcom gets cancelled and there was no ending in the script.

The ending for Three's Company though, really felt like a case of wanting to "have its cake and eat it too". What I mean by that is that sure, it does attempt to still function like a standard series finale by giving the main characters some closure (i.e. Jack, Janet, and Terri moving out of the apartment and moving on to the next chapter in their lives, apart from each other). Yet at the same time, it wants to function as a glorified pilot or advertisement for the upcoming Three's a Crowd (https://www.google.com/search?q=datalounge+Three%27s+a+Crowd&sxsrf=APwXEdeV2OWmtTV5zTfz0jupPG44U9Mikw%3A1687935741199&ei=_dqbZOLlC6iwptQP5KWVkAY&ved=0ahUKEwii2IfSsuX_AhUomIkEHeRSBWIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=datalounge+Three%27s+a+Crowd&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIECCMQJzoICAAQogQQsAM6CwgAEIkFEKIEELADOggIABCKBRCRAjoFCAAQgAQ6CggAEIAEEBQQhwI6CAgAEIoFEIYDOgYIABAWEB5KBQg8EgExSgQIQRgBUM0EWMYaYL8caAFwAHgAgAHnAYgBuhiSAQYwLjExLjWYAQCgAQHAAQHIAQM&sclient=gws-wiz-serp) spin-off (https://jacksonupperco.com/2015/07/29/when-three-became-a-crowd-a-look-at-the-last-threes-company-spin-off/).

The problem is that I don't know or care enough about this woman (Vicky) that Jack just met and wanted to marry well enough to really give a damn about her or her relationship with Jack. I mean, they only met like maybe, an episode or two prior and yet, they're already moving in together as "friends with benefits"!?

Plus, with all due respect to Mary Cadorette (https://www.google.com/search?q=datalounge+Mary+Cadorette&sxsrf=APwXEdfejA7zcNeU3oOtQQkyDshK8fp6pA%3A1687935398148&ei=ptmbZM-lCMSo5NoP8dOr2Ao&ved=0ahUKEwjPkL2useX_AhVEFFkFHfHpCqsQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=datalounge+Mary+Cadorette&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIICAAQiQUQogQyBQgAEKIEMgUIABCiBDoECCMQJzoICAAQigUQkQI6BQgAEIAEOggIABCKBRCGAzoGCAAQFhAeSgUIPBIBM0oECEEYAFAAWODUFGCk1xRoA3AAeACAAfgDiAH0GZIBCTItNS4yLjIuMZgBAKABAaABAsABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp), I never thought that she was that hot or attractive or had that interesting enough of personality for a guy like Jack Tripper to fall head over heels in love with to the point that he wanted to immediately settle down with her.

The ending for Three's Company though, really felt like a case of wanting to "have its cake and eat it too". What I mean by that is that sure, it does attempt to still function like a standard series finale by giving the main characters some closure (i.e. Jack, Janet, and Terri moving out of the apartment and moving on to the next chapter in their lives, apart from each other). Yet at the same time, it wants to function as a glorified pilot or advertisement for the upcoming Three's a Crowd (https://www.google.com/search?q=datalounge+Three%27s+a+Crowd&sxsrf=APwXEdeV2OWmtTV5zTfz0jupPG44U9Mikw%3A1687935741199&ei=_dqbZOLlC6iwptQP5KWVkAY&ved=0ahUKEwii2IfSsuX_AhUomIkEHeRSBWIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=datalounge+Three%27s+a+Crowd&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIECCMQJzoICAAQogQQsAM6CwgAEIkFEKIEELADOggIABCKBRCRAjoFCAAQgAQ6CggAEIAEEBQQhwI6CAgAEIoFEIYDOgYIABAWEB5KBQg8EgExSgQIQRgBUM0EWMYaYL8caAFwAHgAgAHnAYgBuhiSAQYwLjExLjWYAQCgAQHAAQHIAQM&sclient=gws-wiz-serp) spin-off (https://jacksonupperco.com/2015/07/29/when-three-became-a-crowd-a-look-at-the-last-threes-company-spin-off/).

The problem is that I don't know or care enough this woman (Vicky) that Jack just met and wanted to marry well enough to really give a damn about her or her relationship with Jack. I mean, they only met like maybe, an episode or two prior and yet, they're already moving in together as "friends with benefits"!?

Plus, with all due respect to Mary Cadorette (https://www.google.com/search?q=datalounge+Mary+Cadorette&sxsrf=APwXEdfejA7zcNeU3oOtQQkyDshK8fp6pA%3A1687935398148&ei=ptmbZM-lCMSo5NoP8dOr2Ao&ved=0ahUKEwjPkL2useX_AhVEFFkFHfHpCqsQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=datalounge+Mary+Cadorette&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIICAAQiQUQogQyBQgAEKIEMgUIABCiBDoECCMQJzoICAAQigUQkQI6BQgAEIAEOggIABCKBRCGAzoGCAAQFhAeSgUIPBIBM0oECEEYAFAAWODUFGCk1xRoA3AAeACAAfgDiAH0GZIBCTItNS4yLjIuMZgBAKABAaABAsABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp), I never thought that she was that hot or attractive or had that interesting enough of personality for a guy like Jack Tripper to fall head over heels in love with to the point that he wanted to immediately settle down with her.


Cadorette should not have been cast as the female lead, that should have been clear to the producers and the network. The relationship between Jack and his live in girlfriend was going to have to be the primary focus of the series, not the restaurant, not his relationship with his would be father-in-law. The relationship had to generate heat, the audience had to be fully engaged, it couldn't be just replacing two similar roommates with one girlfriend similar to the replaced roommates. Therefore the show needed some dynamic casting when it came to the part of Vicki. John Ritter who we can assume had approval rights over the casting of the part wanted his character to be the central focus as he had been with the prior series. The series had no chance to succeed offering the audience little more than a variation of the original series.

With respect to the Three's Company finale, the producers wanted to dispatch with those characters as quickly and efficiently as possible and focus on the new series, so of course there was zero likelihood of the audience being satisfied.

Vicky is the type of woman any guy would love to be in a relationship with


"Lets live together and not get married. We will be together because we WANT TO not because we have to"

:lol::lol::lol:

Im looking for someone like Vicky on Bumble:lol:

I went back and read some of the old comments (https://web.archive.org/web/20140406110252/http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/topic/3111823-threes-company/page-9) on Television Without Pity. And others in there, have said (https://web.archive.org/web/20140406110252/http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/topic/3111823-threes-company/page-9#entry14149407) that the whole final episode of Three's Company is just a set-up to Three's a Crowd. They even gave us full scenes of brand new characters without any Three's Company characters. Either way, it certainly shouldn't have ended (https://web.archive.org/web/20140406110252/http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/topic/3111823-threes-company/page-9#entry14152209) with a promo for next week's episode of its spin-off.

Also, Jack is completely neutered as he spends the whole time fawning or moping (https://web.archive.org/web/20140406110252/http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/topic/3111823-threes-company/page-9#entry14152031) about Vicky. Bare in mind that he proposed to Vicky after only knowing her for two weeks. They almost went the full-blown soap opera route in the final episode instead of actually having anything that's funny.

It does not matter that it was not a "finale". It was the end of a long running beloved show and it was tossed off in a half assed uncaring manner. Which is not surprising considering the show's history of treating it's character's, star's and fan's.

I do wonder if the series finale (https://www.google.com/search?q=series+finale+three%27s+company&oq=series+finale+three%27s+company&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQIxgnMgkIAhAjGCcYigUyCQgDEAAYQxiKBTIJCAQQABhDGIoFMg0IBRAuGMcBGNEDGIAEMgwIBhAAGBQYhwIYgAQyDwgHEC4YFBiHAhjUAhiABDIPCAgQLhgUGIcCGNQCGIAEMg8ICRAuGBQYhwIY1AIYgATSAQ4yOTY4MDk4ODBqMGoxNagCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) of Three's Company (https://www.google.com/search?q=series+finale+three%27s+company+worst+site:www.sitcomsonline.com&sxsrf=AB5stBh-UJk0HxgDhhwi4pgBW7ORuvxcrw:1689575381566&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjIz8HjjpWAAxXpr4QIHYzdAjcQrQIoA3oECDYQBA&biw=1600&bih=757&dpr=1) does hurt the show's overall legacy somewhat. I would use How I Met Your Mother as a prime example (https://officialfan.proboards.com/thread/627689/classic-tv-staying-power?page=5) of how a very decisive final episode can hurt a show's overall rewatch value.

Plus, with all due respect to Mary Cadorette (https://www.google.com/search?q=datalounge+Mary+Cadorette&sxsrf=APwXEdfejA7zcNeU3oOtQQkyDshK8fp6pA%3A1687935398148&ei=ptmbZM-lCMSo5NoP8dOr2Ao&ved=0ahUKEwjPkL2useX_AhVEFFkFHfHpCqsQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=datalounge+Mary+Cadorette&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIICAAQiQUQogQyBQgAEKIEMgUIABCiBDoECCMQJzoICAAQigUQkQI6BQgAEIAEOggIABCKBRCGAzoGCAAQFhAeSgUIPBIBM0oECEEYAFAAWODUFGCk1xRoA3AAeACAAfgDiAH0GZIBCTItNS4yLjIuMZgBAKABAaABAsABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp), I never thought that she was that hot or attractive or had that interesting enough of personality for a guy like Jack Tripper to fall head over heels in love with to the point that he wanted to immediately settle down with her.

I think Mary was a good-looking woman, but as you've indicated maybe somewhat lacking in the "hotness" factor needed for a lead role. And the wardrobe was a little dowdy (with those legs, she would look great in a black leather miniskirt!).
292549

The ending for Three's Company though, really felt like a case of wanting to "have its cake and eat it too". What I mean by that is that sure, it does attempt to still function like a standard series finale by giving the main characters some closure (i.e. Jack, Janet, and Terri moving out of the apartment and moving on to the next chapter in their lives, apart from each other). Yet at the same time, it wants to function as a glorified pilot or advertisement for the upcoming Three's a Crowd (https://www.google.com/search?q=datalounge+Three%27s+a+Crowd&sxsrf=APwXEdeV2OWmtTV5zTfz0jupPG44U9Mikw%3A1687935741199&ei=_dqbZOLlC6iwptQP5KWVkAY&ved=0ahUKEwii2IfSsuX_AhUomIkEHeRSBWIQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=datalounge+Three%27s+a+Crowd&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIECCMQJzoICAAQogQQsAM6CwgAEIkFEKIEELADOggIABCKBRCRAjoFCAAQgAQ6CggAEIAEEBQQhwI6CAgAEIoFEIYDOgYIABAWEB5KBQg8EgExSgQIQRgBUM0EWMYaYL8caAFwAHgAgAHnAYgBuhiSAQYwLjExLjWYAQCgAQHAAQHIAQM&sclient=gws-wiz-serp) spin-off (https://jacksonupperco.com/2015/07/29/when-three-became-a-crowd-a-look-at-the-last-threes-company-spin-off/).

The problem is that I don't know or care enough this woman (Vicky) that Jack just met and wanted to marry well enough to really give a damn about her or her relationship with Jack. I mean, they only met like maybe, an episode or two prior and yet, they're already moving in together as "friends with benefits"!?

Plus, with all due respect to Mary Cadorette (https://www.google.com/search?q=datalounge+Mary+Cadorette&sxsrf=APwXEdfejA7zcNeU3oOtQQkyDshK8fp6pA%3A1687935398148&ei=ptmbZM-lCMSo5NoP8dOr2Ao&ved=0ahUKEwjPkL2useX_AhVEFFkFHfHpCqsQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=datalounge+Mary+Cadorette&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIICAAQiQUQogQyBQgAEKIEMgUIABCiBDoECCMQJzoICAAQigUQkQI6BQgAEIAEOggIABCKBRCGAzoGCAAQFhAeSgUIPBIBM0oECEEYAFAAWODUFGCk1xRoA3AAeACAAfgDiAH0GZIBCTItNS4yLjIuMZgBAKABAaABAsABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp), I never thought that she was that hot or attractive or had that interesting enough of personality for a guy like Jack Tripper to fall head over heels in love with to the point that he wanted to immediately settle down with her.

I always wondered if they should have used the character Eleanor instead of Vicky who Jack falls in love with. It would have been funny that Jack and Eleanor ended up together (the person who he replaced as the girls roommate). She was friends with Janet, so it wouldn't have been some random girl Jacks ends up with. It could have been a better transition into the new show.

They would have had to recast her with somebody stunning and funny. Mary Cadorette is very talented, but she wasn't the right pick for the spin-off.

Janet’s wedding looked so tacky and cheap. However, I always thought in my head it was Chrissy calling to wish her a happy wedding when the phone rang in the middle of the ceremony. Jmho.

I always found it odd that Janet's parents weren't at the wedding. The finale was a mess, yeah.

The wedding was absolutely thrown together. As I said, it looked so cheap and low brow.

They didn't really give Jack a happy ending (at least when compared to Janet and Terri) when you get right down to it. I think that's especially why people have an issue with the series finale. Jack is practically trapped in a sexless relationship with a prudish child woman, who doesn't want to get married because she's so "traumatized" by her parents' divorce. And he also has to deal with his new girlfriend's obnoxiously meddlesome father, who has a bone to pick with him despite Jack completely not deserving it.

The wedding was cheaply put together. I do agree with many here how Jack changed and suddenly wanted to get married while his girlfriend didn't was a bad set up.
But we must remember these episodes of Threes Company did not air until September because they were using them as a launch into the new show just weeks later. So in some weird way they are more Threes A Crowd than Threes Company.
I was just watching it last night and I caught something. There is a phone call that interrupts the wedding and Jack answers and yells into the phone "the wedding is starting" and hangs up. At the end of the episode Vicki's father comes running to the apartment thinking Vicki got married. They have a conversation and Vicki asks something like why did you come here and he says something like I tried to call. So it may have been Vicki's father that was calling and a set up into the plot. I never caught that before.
I always laugh at the woman who appears to play the organ. The wedding was so cheap yet they hired an organ player? :lol:

Good points about having a cheap wedding, hired organist.

Does anyone else feel they should have paid Fell and Lindley to reprise their roles?

It would have garnered more laughs to have the Ropers there with Stanley playing his bugel and Helen with a collapsed cake.

That era of the show was done and gone, sadly. However, it would have been nice to have seen Stanley and and Helen again.

I agree it was a quick send off to transition to the spin off. However at least there was an ending. There are countless other sitcoms that ran longer that had no send off like The Jeffersons, etc. Good Times also had a quick send off. There is no good way since its a sitcom and supposed to be funny. Alice also had a quick rather abrupt ending for a 10 year run. But I would rather have a bad ending compared to no ending at all when a sitcom gets cancelled and there was no ending in the script.

Totally agree with this. Any ending is better than none.

I think Mary was a good-looking woman, but as you've indicated maybe somewhat lacking in the "hotness" factor needed for a lead role. And the wardrobe was a little dowdy (with those legs, she would look great in a black leather miniskirt!).
292549

I guess, that Mary Cadorette (https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=571840155&sxsrf=AM9HkKmYg8WYMJJiMRExOUdGWYypQbGjNg:1696840818926&q=Mary+Cadorette&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjL14HSyOiBAxX6lGoFHbaXBsEQ0pQJegQIDRAB&biw=1600&bih=783&dpr=1#imgrc=AUbCVgYFU3SXYM) from a certain angle, kind of and vaguely resembles a brown eyed variation of Ashley Williams (https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=571840155&sxsrf=AM9HkKkw76nJ7D04jWDc4g79PDf35IQiJg:1696840928584&q=ashley+williams&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwidkqeGyeiBAxUDk2oFHSDTA3UQ0pQJegQIDRAB&biw=1600&bih=783&dpr=1), who was on Good Morning Miami, How I Met Your Mother, The Jim Gaffigan Show, etc. in that she's attractive in a "girl next door" or a girl that you would meet at church or at the PTA meeting sort of way.

https://hallmark.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/fc82a3c/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1134x595+452+190/resize/1200x630!/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhallmark-channel-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fb3%2F45%2F7660681a499596f18eea74949d92%2Fsisterswapchristmasinthecity-meg-0107g-rt-copy.jpg

What's weird is that I genuinely find Mary far more attractive and desirable looking in Stewardess School (https://haphazardstuff.com/stewardess-school-1986-movie-review/), which came along about a year after Three's a Crowd was canceled.

https://haphazardstuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Mary-Cadorette-Stewardess-School-1986-movie-comedy-1024x578.jpg

The wedding was cheaply put together. I do agree with many here how Jack changed and suddenly wanted to get married while his girlfriend didn't was a bad set up.
But we must remember these episodes of Threes Company did not air until September because they were using them as a launch into the new show just weeks later. So in some weird way they are more Threes A Crowd than Threes Company.
I was just watching it last night and I caught something. There is a phone call that interrupts the wedding and Jack answers and yells into the phone "the wedding is starting" and hangs up. At the end of the episode Vicki's father comes running to the apartment thinking Vicki got married. They have a conversation and Vicki asks something like why did you come here and he says something like I tried to call. So it may have been Vicki's father that was calling and a set up into the plot. I never caught that before.
I always laugh at the woman who appears to play the organ. The wedding was so cheap yet they hired an organ player? :lol:

Part of the problem I think when people say that the last few episodes of Three's Company feel rushed, is the general format of the show itself. Before all of this, Jack and Janet were never to the best of my recollection or knowledge, depicted as being in long term romantic relationships. So right from the jump, there's barely any emotional investments once they get involved with Vicky and Phillip respectively.

Three's Company was never a show that cared much about long term plot development or continuity so having Jack and Janet suddenly want to get married to people who we the viewers barely know feels completely inorganic. It also reflects how poorly planned that final season was if the whole intent was to lead to Three's a Crowd over a year later.

Part of the problem I think when people say that the last few episodes of Three's Company feel rushed, is the general format of the show itself. Before all of this, Jack and Janet were never to the best of my recollection or knowledge, depicted as being in long term romantic relationships. So right from the jump, there's barely any emotional investments once they get involved with Vicky and Phillip respectively.

Three's Company was never a show that cared much about long term plot development or continuity so having Jack and Janet suddenly want to get married to people who we the viewers barely know feels completely inorganic. It also reflects how poorly planed that final season was if the whole intent was to led to Three's a Crowd over a year later.
I agree. But when you are ending an iconic sitcom you have to develop some sort of long term situation. Having Janet get married and Jack fall in love seemed just about right. It definitely was against the grain of the entire series but they were getting old and something had to happen.
In the beginning Jack had no job and Chrissy and Janet were struggling. At the end Jack owned his own restaurant, Terri was an emergency room nurse, and Janet was the manager of the Flower Shop doing side jobs like an aerobics instructor. There was no reason for them to share a 2 bedroom apartment. But they made the decision to grow the characters. Janet started the series in patch jeans and ended it wearing expensive fashion outfits and even had money to buy a car that lasted one day :lol:

After Years of Being Mostly ‘The Jack Tripper Show,’ Three’s Company’s Series Finale Went All the Way (https://popculturereferences.com/after-years-of-being-mostly-the-jack-tripper-show-threes-companys-series-finale-went-all-the-way/)

In the latest in a feature spotlighting backdoor pilots, Brian shows how the Three's Company series finale sidelined the rest of the cast to push Jack's new spinoff with his new girlfriend.

https://popculturereferences.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/threes-company-finale-header-1024x513.jpg

Today, we look at how the series finale of Three’s Company sidelined the rest of the cast to set up Jack’s spinoff series.

This is Back Door Blues (https://popculturereferences.com/category/back-door-blues/), a feature about “backdoor pilots.” Backdoor pilots are episodes of regular TV series that are intended to also work as pilots for a new series. Sometimes these pilots get picked up, but a lot of times they did not get picked up. I’ll spotlight examples of both successful and failed backdoor pilots.

December is a month of Back Door Blues! Following our look (https://popculturereferences.com/the-facts-of-life-spent-its-series-finale-basically-ignoring-the-facts-of-life-cast/) at how The Facts of Life‘s series finale tried to set up a new series, we’ll look at a week’s worth of series finales serving as backdoor pilots!

CONCEPT: Three’s a Crowd – Jack Tripper (John Ritter) moves in with his girlfriend, Vicky (Mary Cadorette), much to the consternation of her father, James Bradford (Robert Mandan).

SERIES IT AIRED ON Three’s Company

I’ve noted a few times over the years that Three’s Company really got weird for me when Jack Tripper (John Ritter) received his own restaurant, Jack’s Bistro. The show was always a star vehicle for Ritter, but when he gained his own restaurant, the show essentially became The Jack Tripper Show, with occasional guest appearances by the other cast members of the series (his two roommates, Janet and Terri, played by Joyce DeWitt and Priscilla Barnes) and the building’s super, Mr. Furley (Don Knotts), who only allows Jack to live with Janet and Terri because Jack pretends to be gay.

In an unusual move, the series finale aired in September 1984, months after the nominal May finale setup the events of the finale, namely that Janet is getting married, and Jack meets a flight attendant named Vicky, who he falls for.

In the series finale, the first part has Janet and Phillip’s wedding, and the sudden reveal that Terri received and accepted a job offer in Hawaii (out of NOWHERE just to give her SOME sort of plot), and Jack proposing to Vicky, who turns him down, because her parents’ divorce soured her on marriage. Her position is kind of ill-considered and silly, as she wants to live with Jack and EFFECTIVELY be married, just not actually married, because somehow just the act of getting married will tear them apart for some reason.

Jack doesn’t want that, but in the end, he agrees, and they move in together into the apartment above Jack’s restaurant. The thing is, the second part of the episode is all about Jack and Vicky for the first ten minutes or so, then there’s eight minutes of everyone saying goodbye, before they go back to Jack and Vicky for six minutes at the end of the episode, with her father (who doesn’t want his unmarried daughter living with another man) barging in on them in bed, announcing that he bought the building, so is now Jack’s landlord!

They literally end the episode with the name of the spinoff, Three’s a Crowd, scrolling on to the screen, as it would debut the following week.

DID THE PILOT GO TO SERIES? Obviously, as it was built into the show (note that Three’s a Crowd follows the setup of the spinoff sequel, Robin’s Nest, of the British TV show that Three’s Company was based on, Man About the House). So this was likely always seen as a fait accompli, since Robin’s Nest was as big of a hit as Man About the House, so the producers likely figured Three’s a Crowd would be a similar success.

SHOULD IT HAVE? I mean, John Ritter was always good as Jack Tripper, and, again, that was the setup for the British version, so I guess fair enough, but Three’s a Crowd was BAD, and only lasted a single season.

The wedding was cheaply put together. I do agree with many here how Jack changed and suddenly wanted to get married while his girlfriend didn't was a bad set up.
But we must remember these episodes of Threes Company did not air until September because they were using them as a launch into the new show just weeks later. So in some weird way they are more Threes A Crowd than Threes Company.
I was just watching it last night and I caught something. There is a phone call that interrupts the wedding and Jack answers and yells into the phone "the wedding is starting" and hangs up. At the end of the episode Vicki's father comes running to the apartment thinking Vicki got married. They have a conversation and Vicki asks something like why did you come here and he says something like I tried to call. So it may have been Vicki's father that was calling and a set up into the plot. I never caught that before.
I always laugh at the woman who appears to play the organ. The wedding was so cheap yet they hired an organ player? :lol:

Three's Company (https://www.google.com/search?q=Three%27s+Company+1984+ABC&tbm=bks&tbs=bkt:s&source=newspapers) is the only network sitcom that I'm aware of that had its series finale (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsOyEz85-5w) aired (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h7kJIhBouE) in the month of September (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-3k1yYhtuM) that it wasn't due to say, being a midseason replacement, was being quietly burned off by its network, nor was it delayed by anything else like industry work stoppages.

I always found it odd that Janet's parents weren't at the wedding. The finale was a mess, yeah.

As others have pointed out, Cindy and Mr. and Mrs. Roper should've also been at Janet's wedding, if they were really serious about this being the series finale for Three's Company. Were Jenilee Harrison, Norman Fell, and Audra Lindley not available? And it couldn't have been that they had any real "bad blood" with the producers like Suzanne Somers had.

As others have pointed out, Cindy and Mr. and Mrs. Roper should've also been at Janet's wedding, if they were really serious about this being the series finale for Three's Company. Were Jenilee Harrison, Norman Fell, and Audra Lindley not available? And it couldn't have been that they had any real "bad blood" with the producers like Suzanne Somers had.

Jenilee Harrison first episode of Dallas aired a few weeks after the Three's Company finale. She might have been under contract with CBS at the time.

The Ropers should have been there. I don't know what Norman Fell and Audra Lindley were doing at the time. I wonder if the producers were being cheap and didn't want to pay them big bucks for 1 episode.

It seems like the producers didn't care about the Three's Company fans and only cared about John Ritter and the new show Three's a Crowd.

...

It seems like the producers didn't care about the Three's Company fans and only cared about John Ritter and the new show Three's a Crowd.

Spot on.

The producers of that show never really cared about the fans, characters and even cast other than John Ritter. So it shouldn't be surprising that the shows last episode was lame.

It's like what others have said (https://www.reddit.com/r/threescompany/comments/13y4s8j/comment/jmsz30b/), the big problem (https://www.datalounge.com/thread/29081694-tv-s-worst-series-finales-ever-ranked) with the finale is that it only focuses on Jack's romance with Vicky. Sure, there's Janet's wedding, and you would think that for the final episode (https://www.reddit.com/r/threescompany/comments/jy4iy7/comment/gezli2p/) of Three's Company, it would be the centerpiece, but it's barely relevant and hardly even on screen. Both Janet (https://www.reddit.com/r/popculturechat/comments/15yupjt/comment/jxdreck/) and Terri are treated like background players (https://www.reddit.com/r/threescompany/comments/18xxtv9/series_finale_and_threes_a_crowd/) in the grander scheme of things.

If Janet did not invite her parents for her first wedding when she pretended to marry Jack then the final episode makes sense :lol:

I always wondered if they should have used the character Eleanor instead of Vicky who Jack falls in love with. It would have been funny that Jack and Eleanor ended up together (the person who he replaced as the girls roommate). She was friends with Janet, so it wouldn't have been some random girl Jacks ends up with. It could have been a better transition into the new show.

They would have had to recast her with somebody stunning and funny. Mary Cadorette is very talented, but she wasn't the right pick for the spin-off.

I wonder if the basic issue with an actress like Mary Cadorette (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mary+cadorette+three%27s+a+crowd) is that she never really gave you the inclination that she was "in" on the joke. It seemed like she played things so sincerely that she might as well have been acting in a straight forward drama instead of a multi-camera sitcom.

Compare that to say, somebody like Priscilla Barnes, who was another relative newcomer to the Three's Company world, and yet immediately "got" (at least in my eyes) what the show was about or aiming for. Maybe this is in part, why viewers and critics accused Cadorette of giving a bland (https://www.google.com/search?q=mary+cadorette+three%27s+a+crowd+bland&oq=mary+cadorette+three%27s+a+crowd+bland&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRigAdIBCTM0MjRqMGoxNagCCLACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) performance as Vicky Bradford.

I wonder if the basic issue with an actress like Mary Cadorette (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mary+cadorette+three%27s+a+crowd) is that she never really gave you the inclination that she was "in" on the joke. It seemed like she played things so sincerely that she might as well have been acting in a straight forward drama instead of a multi-camera sitcom.

Compare that to say, somebody like Priscilla Barnes, who was another relative newcomer to the Three's Company world, and yet immediately "got" (at least in my eyes) what the show was about or aiming for. Maybe this is in part, why viewers and critics accused Cadorette of giving a bland (https://www.google.com/search?q=mary+cadorette+three%27s+a+crowd+bland&oq=mary+cadorette+three%27s+a+crowd+bland&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRigAdIBCTM0MjRqMGoxNagCCLACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) performance as Vicky Bradford.

I recently watched Three's a Crowd again. I haven't watched the full series in years. There were some good episodes, but it was nowhere close to what Three's Company was.

Watching now, I don't think Vicky was that bad. She wasn't great, but I think a lot of Three's Company fans didn't like her because she wasn't Janet. They felt Janet got shafted and was replaced by Vicky. She started off on a bad note.

It was the same thing that happened to Cindy after Chrissy was replaced. The fans weren't happy about it. By the time Terri came around, they were used to Chrissy not being there anymore.

The real problem with Three's a Crowd was Mr. Bradford. That was a terrible casting decision. Mr. Roper and Mr. Furley were so much better and it showed.

The cast chemistry just wasn't there on Three's a Crowd.

I recently watched Three's a Crowd again. I haven't watched the full series in years. There were some good episodes, but it was nowhere close to what Three's Company was.

Watching now, I don't think Vicky was that bad. She wasn't great, but I think a lot of Three's Company fans didn't like her because she wasn't Janet. They felt Janet got shafted and was replaced by Vicky. She started off on a bad note.

It was the same thing that happened to Cindy after Chrissy was replaced. The fans weren't happy about it. By the time Terri came around, they were used to Chrissy not being there anymore.

The real problem with Three's a Crowd was Mr. Bradford. That was a terrible casting decision. Mr. Roper and Mr. Furley were so much better and it showed.

The cast chemistry just wasn't there on Three's a Crowd.

I don't necessarily think that a lot of fans didn't like Vicky just because she wasn't Janet. People I believe, didn't like the rushed and haphazard nature that Janet's character was written out and the way in which Vicky was brought into the picture. Having Janet just randomly get married to some bland, generic guy and then her wedding is treated like an afterthought in the final episode (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=413435) just felt like a total slap in the face to not only Joyce DeWitt but to the viewers who stood by for the past eight years.

This following comment (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=6186255&postcount=110) pretty much its the nail on the head for why it was easy to dislike Vicky (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=277021):
Vicky was, indeed, a problem, both because of how she was written and how she was played. We spent all these years watching Jack date all of these sexually mature women with decent heads on their shoulders, but all of a sudden, he hooks up with this drip of a woman who almost seems like a little girl, still relying on her parents, and acting like she's never been in a relationship before. Vicky was also a complete drip, and I couldn't have helped wondering how much funnier the show would've been had Jack hooked up with Greedy Gretchen.

John Ritter and Joyce DeWitt had amazing chemistry, so it's natural to complain about not having Jack and Janet get together "for real" at the end of the series. To play devil's advocate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsOyEz85-5w&lc=UggZmYoZwWBvlXgCoAEC.7-H0Z7-GE9e7E0EJ2uk1O9) for a moment, Three's a Crowd is based on Robin's Nest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin%27s_Nest_(TV_series)) from the UK and Robin Tripp (the British equivalent to Jack Tripper) does not enter a romantic relationship with Chrissy Plummer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Man_About_the_House_characters#Chrissy_Plummer) (the British equivalent to Janet Wood on its parent show, Man About the House (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_About_the_House)). And then you bring in Mary Cadorette, who only is not only ill-suited as a lead on a sitcom but has virtually little to no chemistry with John Ritter. And because Mary was relatively new to the business, it was quite easy to pin most of the blame of Three's a Crowd's failure on her.

Cadorette should not have been cast as the female lead, that should have been clear to the producers and the network. The relationship between Jack and his live in girlfriend was going to have to be the primary focus of the series, not the restaurant, not his relationship with his would be father-in-law. The relationship had to generate heat, the audience had to be fully engaged, it couldn't be just replacing two similar roommates with one girlfriend similar to the replaced roommates. Therefore the show needed some dynamic casting when it came to the part of Vicki. John Ritter who we can assume had approval rights over the casting of the part wanted his character to be the central focus as he had been with the prior series. The series had no chance to succeed offering the audience little more than a variation of the original series.

With respect to the Three's Company finale, the producers wanted to dispatch with those characters as quickly and efficiently as possible and focus on the new series, so of course there was zero likelihood of the audience being satisfied.

I had previously written that an actress like Mary Cadorette (https://youtu.be/aGuB10AUjRs) seemed to rarely give the inclination (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBjEwStbEq4&lc=UgxnGD9o2lMHXVy5PbZ4AaABAg) on Three's Company (https://youtu.be/0h7kJIhBouE?t=8)/Three's a Crowd (https://youtu.be/oCNj8kq7uBw) that she was truly "in" on the joke. In other words, she seemingly didn't know exactly (https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1c7opdr/movies_where_only_one_actor_knows_what_kind_of/), what type of show that she signed up for.

I then remembered something that I had previously written in the Glee forum (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?p=6140148#post6140148):
Glee was supposed to be satirical and dark. But then bland (https://www.reddit.com/r/glee/comments/1df8qs/the_reason_people_hate_marley_et_al/), humorless (https://www.reddit.com/r/glee/comments/j4p645/rory_was_such_a_boring_and_one_dimensional/), and boring (https://gleeksandtheirconfessions.tumblr.com/post/99368427183/i-think-marley-is-the-most-boring-character-of-all) characters (https://screenrant.com/glee-worst-side-characters-reddit/) like Marley (https://glee-the-new-york-story.fandom.com/wiki/Marley_Rose) and Rory (https://glee.fandom.com/wiki/Rory_Flanagan) were added. Their additions may have been fine had there been an ounce of irony in their performances and not played completely straight.

I recently watched Three's a Crowd again. I haven't watched the full series in years. There were some good episodes, but it was nowhere close to what Three's Company was.

Watching now, I don't think Vicky was that bad. She wasn't great, but I think a lot of Three's Company fans didn't like her because she wasn't Janet. They felt Janet got shafted and was replaced by Vicky. She started off on a bad note.

It was the same thing that happened to Cindy after Chrissy was replaced. The fans weren't happy about it. By the time Terri came around, they were used to Chrissy not being there anymore.

The real problem with Three's a Crowd was Mr. Bradford. That was a terrible casting decision. Mr. Roper and Mr. Furley were so much better and it showed.

The cast chemistry just wasn't there on Three's a Crowd.
I hated Vicky because she was so straight laced. You could play a drinking game every time she says "oh Jack." Her character was very sterile.

I was a kid when Three's a Crowd first aired. I remember hating Vicky because she "replaced" the girls. I couldn't even watch Three's a Crowd at the time because of it and a lot of people felt that way.

Years later as an adult, I watched the show and it was obvious they should have had a different actress as the love interest for Jack, but she did an ok job.

The lead actress in a sitcom shouldn't just be "ok" if you expect it to be a hit and last for years.

Regarding Three's A Crowd I enjoyed the series and found it a better spin-off than The Roger's. John Ritter was giving it 100% always, the character of EZ Taylor was always funny and while Vicki was the straight man I wasn't watching the show for her but for Jack.

I agree with you. I enjoyed Three's A Crowd and I also thought it was better than the Ropers.

Janet’s wedding looked so tacky and cheap. However, I always thought in my head it was Chrissy calling to wish her a happy wedding when the phone rang in the middle of the ceremony. Jmho.

They could've also in theory, had Chrissy's father Reverend Snow (https://threescompany.fandom.com/wiki/Reverend_Luther_Snow) officiate Janet's wedding. But again, after Suzanne Somers officially left the show on ugly terms, it was going to be doubtful that they were ever going to bother explicitly mentioning Chrissy or her immediate family again.

I recently watched Three's a Crowd again. I haven't watched the full series in years. There were some good episodes, but it was nowhere close to what Three's Company was.

Watching now, I don't think Vicky was that bad. She wasn't great, but I think a lot of Three's Company fans didn't like her because she wasn't Janet. They felt Janet got shafted and was replaced by Vicky. She started off on a bad note.

It was the same thing that happened to Cindy after Chrissy was replaced. The fans weren't happy about it. By the time Terri came around, they were used to Chrissy not being there anymore.

The real problem with Three's a Crowd was Mr. Bradford. That was a terrible casting decision. Mr. Roper and Mr. Furley were so much better and it showed.

The cast chemistry just wasn't there on Three's a Crowd.

Also, Terri coming around to be the full-time replacement for Chrissy may have been a case where a show got better when a certain character left (https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/1da8g38/what_are_shows_that_got_better_when_a_character/). Chrissy by Season 4-5 was becoming in my humble opinion, more and more of a detriment to the show. For whatever the reasons, Chrissy's character went from being sweet and naïve to being flat out stupid and cartoonish.

Suzanne Somers seemed to feel the need to play her character more broadly. It was like Suzanne was trying to "win" every scene that she was in with her over the top mugging, her snorting, and her dopey high-pitched voice that she would put on.

When Priscilla Barnes came in, it was like, finally we have an adult in the house. It seems like people only prefer Chrissy (even despite her character's Flanderization) over Terri because Chrissy served as a bigger contrast to Janet. Whereas Terri like Janet seemed to have her stuff together already.

Here's another discussion (https://www.reddit.com/r/threescompany/comments/1dglhrk/your_thoughts_on_the_series_finale/) or two (https://www.reddit.com/r/threescompany/comments/1ddopyj/janets_wedding/) concerning how much the series finale for Three's Company was a major let down.

I was just sad it was over..... I remember seeing Janet in bed with Jack :(

My issue with the Finale was


Didnt see Larry apt for last time

Didnt see the party going on inside furleys apt

Didnt see the Reagle beagle for last time

For the record since this coming September 18, will officially mark the 40th anniversary of the series finale first being broadcast (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=474684), what specifically did people not like about the final episode, "Friends and Lovers"?


Is it simply that people naturally wanted Jack and Janet to finally realize that they were in love with each other beyond platonically and them coming to together should've been the desired endgame?

Is it because Janet and Terri were practically reduced to supporting players on their own show in favor giving primary focus to Jack's romance with Vicky and his initial dealings with her father, James?

Is it because people at the end of the day, didn't like or gravitate to these new characters who were going to be central in Jack's life for the immediate future?

Is it because it was arguably, half-heartedly treated like a series finale for Three's Company and felt more like a glorified backdoor pilot for the forthcoming Three's a Crowd spin-off.

Is it because the whole thing from Janet's courtship of Phillip and their wedding, to Jack's own romance with Vicky, to Terri landing a job in Hawaii, felt rushed?


Or was it simply or merely a combination of all that I just listed?

For the record since this coming September 18, will officially mark the 40th anniversary of the series finale first being broadcast, what specifically did people not like about the final episode, "Friends and Lovers"?

Is it simply that people naturally wanted Jack and Janet to finally realize that they were in love with each other beyond platonically and them coming to together should've been the desired endgame?

Is it because Janet and Terri were practically reduced to supporting players on their own show in favor giving primary focus to Jack's romance with Vicki and his initial dealings with her father, James?

Is it because people at the end of the day, didn't like or gravitate to these new characters who were going to be central in Jack's life for the immediate future?

Is it because it was arguably, half-heartedly treated like a series finale for Three's Company and felt more like a glorified backdoor pilot for the forthcoming Three's a Crowd spin-off.

Is it because the whole thing from Janet's courtship of Phillip and their wedding, to Jack's own romance with Vicki, to Terri landing a job in Hawaii, felt rushed?

Or was it simply or merely a combination of all that I just listed?
For me its that the final was used as a backdoor pilot to Threes A Crowd. It was sort of the end but not really. Jack was moving on while the other characters were not. Sitcom endings rarely if ever bring back all the characters that were part of the series for the final.
The show sort of jumped the shark IMHO once Jack was made the star of Threes Company. I know the series was created as Jack as the main character and Ritter was paid the most. But for the first 5 seasons it did not seem that way. The girls were just as popular and crucial as Jack. The episodes would vary who was the lead each week. Terri's second season things really changed. Suddenly the girls were almost secretly worshipping Jack and most episodes were exclusively about Jack. It was so annoying how the girls would say in unison "Jaaaaack" or "Ohhh Jack" Once Jack got his own restaurant the writing was on the wall and the secret spin off was developing. Looking back you can really see how the show was tilted towards the Jack character. He became successful, had his own restaurant, and most episodes were about him.
The show was already on its last legs and they tried to develop another format where Jack is no longer a playboy but his girlfriend refuses to get married. This is why the final episode rubs me the wrong way. It was a springboard of what was in the works for 2 years.

I recently watched Three's a Crowd again. I haven't watched the full series in years. There were some good episodes, but it was nowhere close to what Three's Company was.

Watching now, I don't think Vicky was that bad. She wasn't great, but I think a lot of Three's Company fans didn't like her because she wasn't Janet. They felt Janet got shafted and was replaced by Vicky. She started off on a bad note.

It was the same thing that happened to Cindy after Chrissy was replaced. The fans weren't happy about it. By the time Terri came around, they were used to Chrissy not being there anymore.

The real problem with Three's a Crowd was Mr. Bradford. That was a terrible casting decision. Mr. Roper and Mr. Furley were so much better and it showed.

The cast chemistry just wasn't there on Three's a Crowd.

I think that the problem with Mr. Bradford, and it has I believe, been addressed here before, is that they seemingly wanted Robert Mandan to play an off-brand version of Ted Knight's character, Henry Rush on Too Close for Comfort. The difference is that unlike with Monroe on TCFC, Jack Tripper on Three's a Crowd never gave Mr. Bradford a justifiable reason to be frustrated with him.

I was there throughout the whole saga, and I remember what it was that disappointed me, sone of which other posters have mentioned:

1. The finale was definitely rushed, because the writers were more interested in setting it up for Three's a Crowd than having a real sendoff for fans of Three's Company.

2. Vicki was too wishy-washy compared to the girls Jack used to date. I get the point of why the writers did that, but it was very frustrating because it was like the writers were so desperate to show how much Jack had matured that they made her completely inoffensive and lacking personality.

3. The entire tone of the show shifted in the worst way possible. Three's Company had started out as this super hip show for cool young people into innuendo and slapstick. They all wore hip clothes and were into hip things. They were quirky, had personalities and everything. All of a sudden in the last season, it became a very lame, safe white bread show for the Reagan crowd, who were trying to force us all to return to the days of the Donna Reed Show, where everyone was super WASPY, acted like a Stepford Wife and dressed like senior citizens.

4. Mr. Bradford sucked as a foil. I could barely stand Mr. Angelino enough as it was (he was so uuuugggggh) but I could tolerate him because he was just a mean boss and so his nastiness made sense. There was nothing likable about Mr. Bradford, and his reasoning for hating Jack so nonsensical. It was established by the last season that Jack was the most gracious, sweetest person you'd ever want to meet, so why on earth was he treating him like crap? I couldn't stand the character so much it took me years to warm up to Robert Mandan as an actor.

5. Terri. Not that she needed to hook up with anyone, but it felt so inconsiderate to just have her left by herself without any real connection to anyone. It felt like the writers had done her and the actress dirty, like they never saw her or her character as a full member of the show, that she was always just "the replacement."

I was there throughout the whole saga, and I remember what it was that disappointed me, sone of which other posters have mentioned:

1. The finale was definitely rushed, because the writers were more interested in setting it up for Three's a Crowd than having a real sendoff for fans of Three's Company.

2. Vicki was too wishy-washy compared to the girls Jack used to date. I get the point of why the writers did that, but it was very frustrating because it was like the writers were so desperate to show how much Jack had matured that they made her completely inoffensive and lacking personality.

3. The entire tone of the show shifted in the worst way possible. Three's Company had started out as this super hip show for cool young people into innuendo and slapstick. They all wore hip clothes and were into hip things. They were quirky, had personalities and everything. All of a sudden in the last season, it became a very lame, safe white bread show for the Reagan crowd, who were trying to force us all to return to the days of the Donna Reed Show, where everyone was super WASPY, acted like a Stepford Wife and dressed like senior citizens.

4. Mr. Bradford sucked as a foil. I could barely stand Mr. Angelino enough as it was (he was so uuuugggggh) but I could tolerate him because he was just a mean boss and so his nastiness made sense. There was nothing likable about Mr. Bradford, and his reasoning for hating Jack so nonsensical. It was established by the last season that Jack was the most gracious, sweetest person you'd ever want to meet, so why on earth was he treating him like crap? I couldn't stand the character so much it took me years to warm up to Robert Mandan as an actor.

5. Terri. Not that she needed to hook up with anyone, but it felt so inconsiderate to just have her left by herself without any real connection to anyone. It felt like the writers had done her and the actress dirty, like they never saw her or her character as a full member of the show, that she was always just "the replacement."
Mr Bradford had no redeeming qualities. He was cruel to Jack and even to his own daugther. There was an episode where Mr Bradford sends one of Vicki's old flames to the apartment to hit on her to try and make her break up with Jack. Then he tried to marry off his ex-wife to a rich man so he no longer had to pay alimony. He was more than a foil. He was a jerk. Sometimes we have empathy with the foil or understand their intent. Never with Mr Bradford. Jack became a total wuss too. Vicki was a robot. Oh Jack! Oh father!
Trying to hang in the balance thinking their behavior was normal.

Mr Bradford had no redeeming qualities. He was cruel to Jack and even to his own daugther. There was an episode where Mr Bradford sends one of Vicki's old flames to the apartment to hit on her to try and make her break up with Jack. Then he tried to marry off his ex-wife to a rich man so he no longer had to pay alimony. He was more than a foil. He was a jerk. Sometimes we emphasize with the foil or understand their intent. Never with Mr Bradford. Jack became a total wuss too. Vicki was a robot. Oh Jack! Oh father!
Trying to hang in the balance thinking their behavior was normal.

Mr. Bradford also comes across as borderline Machiavellian. Even if you never watched Three's a Crowd, the mere fact that the very last scene of the very last episode of Three's Company involves him announcing to Jack that he's his new landlord, gives you a clear enough of an indication where this thing is going.

Like you said, Mr. Angelino was abrasive and nasty to Jack in his own way too, but I never the less, couldn't see him even stooping as low as that. And like you said, at the end of the day, he was just a mean boss (kind of like Mr. Spacely on The Jetsons except in live-action).

I was there throughout the whole saga, and I remember what it was that disappointed me, sone of which other posters have mentioned:

1. The finale was definitely rushed, because the writers were more interested in setting it up for Three's a Crowd than having a real sendoff for fans of Three's Company.

2. Vicki was too wishy-washy compared to the girls Jack used to date. I get the point of why the writers did that, but it was very frustrating because it was like the writers were so desperate to show how much Jack had matured that they made her completely inoffensive and lacking personality.

3. The entire tone of the show shifted in the worst way possible. Three's Company had started out as this super hip show for cool young people into innuendo and slapstick. They all wore hip clothes and were into hip things. They were quirky, had personalities and everything. All of a sudden in the last season, it became a very lame, safe white bread show for the Reagan crowd, who were trying to force us all to return to the days of the Donna Reed Show, where everyone was super WASPY, acted like a Stepford Wife and dressed like senior citizens.

4. Mr. Bradford sucked as a foil. I could barely stand Mr. Angelino enough as it was (he was so uuuugggggh) but I could tolerate him because he was just a mean boss and so his nastiness made sense. There was nothing likable about Mr. Bradford, and his reasoning for hating Jack so nonsensical. It was established by the last season that Jack was the most gracious, sweetest person you'd ever want to meet, so why on earth was he treating him like crap? I couldn't stand the character so much it took me years to warm up to Robert Mandan as an actor.

5. Terri. Not that she needed to hook up with anyone, but it felt so inconsiderate to just have her left by herself without any real connection to anyone. It felt like the writers had done her and the actress dirty, like they never saw her or her character as a full member of the show, that she was always just "the replacement."

This reminds me of this past thread (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=474480) that I made regarding how much Three's Company seemed to change or evolve when it reached the 1980s (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=6312384&postcount=86) (specifically, the final three or so seasons with Priscilla Barnes). Priscilla's arrival does coincide with the start of the Reagan era in America (1981).

4. Mr. Bradford sucked as a foil. I could barely stand Mr. Angelino enough as it was (he was so uuuugggggh) but I could tolerate him because he was just a mean boss and so his nastiness made sense. There was nothing likable about Mr. Bradford, and his reasoning for hating Jack so nonsensical. It was established by the last season that Jack was the most gracious, sweetest person you'd ever want to meet, so why on earth was he treating him like crap? I couldn't stand the character so much it took me years to warm up to Robert Mandan as an actor."

:lol:

Back in 2018, a thread on here was made (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=369289) about how much the Three's Company series finale betrayed the characters.

Would having a long term storyline like bringing in Phillip (https://threescompany.fandom.com/wiki/Phillip_Dawson) and Vicky (https://threescompany.fandom.com/wiki/Vicky_Bradford) at the beginning of Season 8 (https://jacksonupperco.com/2015/07/28/the-ten-best-threes-company-episodes-of-season-eight/) made any difference regarding the negative aspect of how the series ended? From there, they could've in theory, developed the Janet/Phillip and Jack/Vicky relationships more instead of rushing it in the last four episodes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Three%27s_Company_episodes#Season_8_(1983%E2%80%9384)) of the series.

This reminds me of this past thread (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=474480) that I made regarding how much Three's Company seemed to change or evolve when it reached the 1980s (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=6312384&postcount=86) (specifically, the final three or so seasons with Priscilla Barnes). Priscilla's arrival does coincide with the start of the Reagan era in America (1981).



3. The entire tone of the show shifted in the worst way possible. Three's Company had started out as this super hip show for cool young people into innuendo and slapstick. They all wore hip clothes and were into hip things. They were quirky, had personalities and everything. All of a sudden in the last season, it became a very lame, safe white bread show for the Reagan crowd, who were trying to force us all to return to the days of the Donna Reed Show, where everyone was super WASPY, acted like a Stepford Wife and dressed like senior citizens.


To me, the show was a cool, hip show til the end. I didn't see a big change in the show; other than, the cast changes. However, I thought Joyce Dewitt became more prettier and cooler as the show went on. But, of course, the show ran for a long time, so, of course, the characters might not stay exactly the same.

I think Mary was a good-looking woman, but as you've indicated maybe somewhat lacking in the "hotness" factor needed for a lead role. And the wardrobe was a little dowdy (with those legs, she would look great in a black leather miniskirt!).
292549

I was listening to this podcast called "Remember That Show?" And in its most recent episode (https://rememberthatshow.transistor.fm/episodes/remember-that-show-ep-39-threes-a-crowd-1984), it discusses Three's a Crowd. This is brought up (https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68e73e76b99c8191987d8b579e9a0f2a) beginning at the 17:44 mark when it pertains to Mary Cadorette (https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=a40d7e7b6a25306b&sxsrf=AE3TifOaQWQqYkA2i48wgnTe_J-W58rNtQ:1759983562089&udm=2&fbs=AIIjpHxU7SXXniUZfeShr2fp4giZ1Y6MJ25_tmWITc7uy4KIeoJTKjrFjVxydQWqI2NcOhZVmrJB8DQUK5IzxA2fZbQF4YL5sNSRJGgx0e9Z9AxExzjE4_ynshmXB4KOs3cwRUeqSxtyEph1-LMoYoz7AgsxiAlRbfQlh62fpf4TvoMmLeIHIDQBlO9bBf83uliUCcabaD8ejPu9aoigNJtiQ30WOIRP0w&q=Three%27s+a+Crowd+Mary+Cadorette&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-qJ3YoZaQAxV_5MkDHV0kJrIQtKgLegQIIBAB&biw=1600&bih=748&dpr=1). I've personally never heard this before (https://www.perplexity.ai/search/80s-hot-is-90s-ugly-9mprd.lQS3SnxHPlJac0vQ#0), but there's apparently, a joke (https://poe.com/s/0T5e0tuwgkop1EhiGKGM) among one of the host's friends about how (https://www.google.com/search?q=%2780s+hot+is+%2790s+ugly&sca_esv=a40d7e7b6a25306b&sxsrf=AE3TifNHz_gPdZcwIYYyWBQSG2U8JM4yBg%3A1759983646405&udm=50&fbs=AIIjpHxU7SXXniUZfeShr2fp4giZ1Y6MJ25_tmWITc7uy4KIemkjk18Cn72Gp24fGkjjh6wQFVCbKXb4P6swJy4x5wjmjSNJGQvRsKm6-XgTruVwk9DhM0x_AsXZQrPrMy1jKlNB5QCg8cvUNlo0rZvgpBiK6xG3pIL6qztYCWlsMxZVH6Yy22cxQtlIex2wHTZiKfyD2dCa_pAWORKWwB-LHuC-3ozvvA&aep=1&ntc=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi6wreAopaQAxXC_skDHamPLdcQ2J8OegQIERAE&biw=1600&bih=748&dpr=1&mstk=AUtExfChwWsImGrI1zwzJa4yY_Dwd9CswePR1lBkbMmFXgF2T9NdNVo-ODX1_zMCQSfuhC3381e8XmX_4bA8iGX5BgMErbF1nSueZJHivsofa9v--kVd2HBMOTM_wJzzVP8zW0qrzW1T6ikvKzufXA8zqCFlqExHFvzhqydNCYlbVz2CIUTGtoJE2EcswAKCRi-BUiFQNQ1WlDSL5Omn-Dliyc1-BO5C7kJ_i_if4owyPlnI1Sg8l7jhr8GHFJjAd6ux-Cg9_FI_6LT-eR70VGY7XNUCIkCKfziBZzPMz3-V1TZjy8d1cEqaViFNy9fRt4gGvRNkIYk29q5xwMqp1AyleRh0jQfof-XB-N7VO06AHx9MSzMBj9rkqd1f56st-B5CToPpeaX7UjW2JPTynXnNFqzjne7nSeFLu5l3I0CptJAH5OsLR8CnFxlPJOpLhk0CmQZHLUJwdRMkpqIUtsZVCkyyWngiojnW&csuir=1&mtid=MTjnaNfLCu7m5NoPoLedoQE) "'80s hot is '90s ugly" (https://www.google.com/search?q=%2780s+hot+is+%2790s+ugly&oq=%2780s+hot+is+%2790s+ugly&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTg3OTBqMGoxNagCDLACAfEFbNVs1kl403k&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8). Like if you go back and look at something that is "core '80s" (https://www.google.com/search?q=core+%2780s&sca_esv=a40d7e7b6a25306b&sxsrf=AE3TifNHz_gPdZcwIYYyWBQSG2U8JM4yBg%3A1759983646405&ei=HjjnaLq7GML9p84PqZ-2uQ0&ved=0ahUKEwi6wreAopaQAxXC_skDHamPLdcQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=core+%2780s&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiCWNvcmUgJzgwczIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgsQABiABBiGAxiKBTILEAAYgAQYhgMYigUyCxAAGIAEGIYDGIoFSJMNUABYwQFwAXgBkAEAmAHbAqAB2wKqAQMzLTG4AQPIAQD4AQH4AQKYAgKgAsgDqAIQwgINECMY8AUYJxjqAhieBsICDRAjGPAFGCcYyQIY6gLCAgcQIxgnGOoCwgIUEAAYgAQYkQIYtAIYigUY6gLYAQGYA0bxBREpuJox7Pa9ugYGCAEQARgBkgcFMS4zLTGgB7IFsgcDMy0xuAeBA8IHBTQtMS4xyAdY&sclient=gws-wiz-serp), most of the time, instead of going "Oh, she's a real fox!", you're going "She looks like somebody's mom!"

It was simply a different era. And Mary Cadorette according to one of the hosts, is cut from he same cloth as somebody like Princess Diana, at least in regards to her look on Three's a Crowd like a similar bob hairstyle (https://www.google.com/search?q=Princess+Diana+hairstyle&sca_esv=a40d7e7b6a25306b&sxsrf=AE3TifMa1fXNG3xvpsk5rJLcyi42_Mg5yg:1759984094390&udm=50&fbs=AIIjpHxU7SXXniUZfeShr2fp4giZ1Y6MJ25_tmWITc7uy4KIemkjk18Cn72Gp24fGkjjh6w8f_UmwvItOb-_M1yJww2SYzeSHg5KOTFY_CEPbXQKJnX4poLD1j4Bvp18F_JHve33_oXrfYyMPvO_Mc0xJIhv3qW6owCLg11PgdWyDMrkKjab8dPjEgh7kPSItBXYVpq2lolAV23aHIix4iPsSZOKvT_RjQ&aep=1&ntc=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiesobWo5aQAxXY4skDHbxxARcQ2J8OegQICBAE&biw=1600&bih=748&dpr=1) and what not. Think of Mary as like the prettiest mom in the cul-de-sac. So for some men, they're not trying to get a model, they're trying to get the lady who bakes the best cookies at the PTA meeting.

Who exactly (https://www.perplexity.ai/search/who-exactly-specifically-and-p-WHIqK7nwSKOuaZFLl4Y38Q#0), specifically (https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_7a048c6b-3119-4b38-9f42-7b7b14aab917), and precisely (https://chatgpt.com/s/t_693e6f1ef4408191b3821a806b52b072) in what order (https://claude.ai/chat/8331a32c-845f-40b5-8edf-f46f4a354e2b), would you blame (https://poe.com/s/Ui92NgZYduc6lHuzWbuC) for the way and manner of which, the series finale of the ABC sitcom Three's Company, entitled "Friends and Lovers" (which was originally broadcast on September 18, 1984) turned out to be?

That is a deeply researched and specific question — and rightly so, because “Friends and Lovers” is one of the most pointed examples of a sitcom finale that collapsed under the weight of corporate and creative decisions, not the cast’s performance or fan fatigue. If we’re assigning specific and ordered responsibility for how the Three’s Company finale turned out — narratively unsatisfying, spin‑off‑driven, and emotionally hollow — here’s the precise hierarchy of blame, based on production histories, interviews, and context from ABC’s late‑era 1980s sitcom transition period:

1. Producers Don Taffner (executive) and Ted Bergmann (ABC liaison / development pressure)

Primary blame.

Taffner and Bergmann, in particular, were responsible for structuring the end of Three’s Company to align with the rollout of Three’s a Crowd. The entire “Friends and Lovers” arc was designed not to conclude the roommates’ story organically, but to mirror the British format (Man About the House → Robin’s Nest). ABC and the Taffners wanted a fait accompli continuation of the franchise. This choice forcibly reoriented late‑season storylines around Jack’s next phase — introducing Vicky in “Cupid Works Overtime,” sidelining Janet and Terri, and fast‑tracking all arcs to a spinoff pivot.

They set creative tone and priorities, and in so doing, stripped the finale of closure for the ensemble or thematic payoffs that made the series beloved.

2. Writers George Burditt, Martin Rips & Joseph Staretski, and Bernie West

They deserve secondary blame for execution. These veteran scribes were adept at farce, but by Season 8 were writing under directive to reverse‑engineer the British Robin’s Nest plot: Jack gets a girlfriend, a restaurant, and a meddling father‑in‑law. That outline determined most of the dialogue and structure. The finale’s imbalance — too little Janet/Terri, clunky exposition about Hawaii and marriage — comes from their need to service a pilot outline, not a sitcom farewell. They also wrote to satisfy Taffner’s “new normal” rather than to honor audience emotion or long‑term character rhythm.

3. ABC Network Executives (1983–84 season programming strategy)

Specifically, network scheduling and marketing VPs pushed the spin‑off’s creation as part of ABC’s effort to cash in on Three’s Company’s name recognition while retooling its Tuesday primetime lineup. ABC wanted Three’s a Crowd to premiere immediately after Three’s Company ended, hence the September airdate and the built‑in backdoor pilot structure. The network’s insistence on seamless continuity killed any chance of a separate “closure” episode months earlier. This was a network‑level commercial miscalculation — treating an ending as an advertisement.

4. John Ritter (creative influence and goodwill misfire)

Ritter’s personal influence on the show’s direction is worth mentioning. By late in Company’s run, he held major sway over both casting and story arcs. He was enthusiastic about continuing Jack Tripper’s story in Three’s a Crowd and agreed with producers that Vicky could be the engine for a more “grown‑up” Jack. Ritter never wanted a Jack‑and‑Janet romance (he felt it broke the farce dynamic), which alienated fans craving that closure. Though motivated by creative integrity and loyalty to format, his buy‑in directly shaped the finale’s emotional misdirection and tonal imbalance.

5. Mary Cadorette and the casting choice itself

Not due to any fault of hers personally, but the decision to cast an untested romantic lead opposite Ritter in a finale was catastrophic. Chemistry had no time to settle, and her character’s emotional beats (the fear of marriage, attachment to her wealthy father) were both underwritten and tonally mismatched with Three’s Company’s breezy energy. The fault lies in the casting and writing, not her performance. It made the finale’s emotional climax feel artificial — almost corporate audition tape rather than culmination.

6. Final‑season structural fatigue

By Season 8, Three’s Company was already leaning too heavily on farce mechanics and guest‑star storylines. The emotional grounding Joyce DeWitt and Priscilla Barnes brought was undercut by production’s decision to minimize them in order to foreground Vicky. This fatigue exacerbated the finale’s hollowness, though it’s more a symptom of earlier decisions than an independent cause.

Had ABC or Taffner Productions chosen to end the series in May 1984 with a sentimental farewell — allowing Janet’s wedding and Terri’s Hawaii subplot to be epilogues rather than connective tissue — Three’s Company could’ve exited gracefully, preserving its chemistry and tone. The finale failed not for lack of talent, but because it stopped being about these three roommates and became about ABC’s next business model.

Would you like me to follow this with a hypothetical rewrite — how a proper Three’s Company finale (without setting up Three’s a Crowd) could have looked structurally and emotionally?

Blame Hierarchy for the Disappointing Execution of Three's Company's Finale, "Friends and Lovers"

The series finale of Three's Company—a two-part hour-long special aired on September 18, 1984—earned widespread fan backlash for feeling rushed, contrived, and overly focused on launching the spin-off Three's a Crowd at the expense of emotional closure for the core roommates (Jack, Janet, and Terri). It sidelined Janet's wedding to near-brevity, treated Terri's Hawaii move as an afterthought, forced an insta-relationship between Jack and the bland Vicky Bradford (with zero romantic spark), and shoehorned in Vicky's abrasive dad as a setup for ongoing conflict. This deconstructed the beloved trio dynamic fans cherished, ignoring calls for Jack/Janet payoff or Chrissy's return, and it haunted the short-lived spin-off (canceled after one season due to middling ratings). As a direct adaptation of the British Man About the House and its sequel Robin's Nest, the U.S. version was always primed for a spin-off, but the finale's ham-fisted implementation amplified its flaws.

Based on production histories, cast accounts, and critical analyses, here's a precise blame order—from primary architects of the creative choices to enablers and peripheral contributors. This prioritizes those who controlled the script, premise, and rollout, substantiated by behind-the-scenes details.

1. The Writing Team for "Friends and Lovers" (Michael Ross, Bernie West, and George Burditt) – Primary Script-Level Culprits

These executive producers and co-writers bear the most direct responsibility for the finale's tonal whiplash and structural mess. As the core creative force behind Three's Company since its inception (Ross and West alongside the late Don Nicholl), they penned the episode to aggressively pivot from ensemble roommate hijinks to a Jack-centric vehicle, mirroring Robin's Nest but without adapting its charm to American audiences. They introduced Vicky in prior episodes ("Cupid Works Overtime" and "The Heiress") only to rush her arc—Jack's proposal rejection feels "fake and unreal," per fans, with her marriage phobia coming off as contrived exposition rather than organic drama. Terri's exit is tacked-on (a sudden job offer "out of NOWHERE"), Janet's wedding gets minimal screen time despite Joyce DeWitt's emotional performance, and the final 10+ minutes devolve into Three's a Crowd promo, complete with on-screen title crawl. Their script forced "bizarre 'big event' developments" like the abrupt deconstruction of the apartment, marring what could have been a heartfelt sendoff. Ross and West, as holdovers from the show's glory days, knew fans craved trio closure but prioritized Ritter's solo spotlight, dooming the episode to feel like "a major shark jump."

2. Overall Executive Producers Don Taffner and Ted Bergmann (via Taffner-Bergman Productions) – The Monetization Pushers

As the syndication moguls who owned the U.S. rights to Man About the House and greenlit its adaptation, Taffner and Bergmann aggressively pursued spin-offs to extend the franchise's profitability, having already launched the ill-fated The Ropers in 1979. They commissioned Ross, West, and Nicholl as head writers in 1976 and extended that model to Three's a Crowd, viewing Jack as a Ritter "star vehicle" amid Season 8's ratings dip (competing with The A-Team). Their "Americanizing" strategy succeeded initially but faltered here: they blindsided co-stars like DeWitt and Priscilla Barnes (Terri) by not consulting them on the spin-off pivot, fostering "feelings of betrayal" and "controlling behavior" that eroded ensemble goodwill. Taffner's history of squeezing value from British imports (e.g., later attempting a Three's a Crowd reboot without Ritter) shows a pattern of prioritizing IP extension over narrative integrity, turning the finale into a "launching pad" rather than a capstone.

3. ABC Network Executives (e.g., Anthony Thomopoulos, as President of ABC Entertainment) – The Approval Gatekeepers

ABC, desperate to retain Ritter's draw after Three's Company's peak (it was their top sitcom), approved the backdoor pilot despite warning signs like the original's formulaic fatigue by Season 8. Under Thomopoulos (ABC Entertainment head 1978–1985), the network scheduled the delayed finale as a September 1984 "event" special to tee up Three's a Crowd's premiere, but ignored fan resistance to Jack's "committed relationship" sans Janet chemistry. They later balked at a full Season 2 order for the spin-off (offering only 13 episodes), forcing Ritter to walk and hastening its demise—yet they enabled the rushed setup in the first place. ABC's track record with spin-offs (The Ropers flopped too) suggests executive hubris in assuming Ritter alone could carry a sequel, but they signed off on the finale's "flat chemistry" and "unentertaining" elements without demanding rewrites.

4. Casting Directors (Led by Producer George Burditt's Oversight) – The Chemistry Killers

While not the originators, the producers' casting choices exacerbated the finale's awkwardness. Mary Cadorette as Vicky was a last-minute pick after auditions, but her "portrayal... comes off fake" and lacks "comedic chemistry" with Ritter, as fans and reviewers noted—echoing Robin's Nest but without the spark. Robert Mandan's Vicky's dad is "abrasive in an unentertaining way," setting up antagonism that felt forced rather than funny. David Ruprecht (Phillip) fares better but gets short shrift, underscoring how the focus on new characters starved the originals. Burditt, doubling as executive producer, oversaw this, prioritizing spin-off viability over ensemble balance.

5. John Ritter – The Reluctant Star Enabler

Least culpable but complicit: As the breakout lead, Ritter endorsed the spin-off (it was "always seen as a fait accompli" per British precedent), but his later refusal of ABC's half-season renewal killed Three's a Crowd—a principled stand that couldn't retroactively fix the finale's damage. He advocated for DeWitt's inclusion (she got a guest spot in the spin-off pilot), but didn't push back harder against the roommates' erasure, perhaps due to his vehicle status. Fans forgave him, as Ritter's charm salvaged moments (e.g., the tearful goodbye), but his buy-in validated the producers' Jack-obsession.

In hindsight, the finale's flaws stemmed from a gold-rush mentality: capitalize on Three's Company's ABC dominance before it waned. It "never replicated [the] success," proving fans wanted the trio intact, not a Ritter solo act. A bolder close—perhaps Jack/Janet romance or a group hug in the apartment—might have honored the show's fizzy spirit. Instead, it left a "sad coda."

What you’re really asking for is not who was involved, but who bears primary responsibility, in a clear hierarchy, for why “Friends and Lovers” feels like a betrayal of Three’s Company rather than a culmination of it.

Below is a specific, ordered blame map, moving from the people with the most structural power over the outcome to those with diminishing agency.

1️⃣ ABC Network Executives (Primary Responsibility)

Why they’re first:
They controlled renewals, spin-off approvals, scheduling, and mandates. The finale’s biggest sin—being a commercial launch instead of an emotional goodbye—is fundamentally a network-driven decision.

What ABC did wrong


Mandated a backdoor pilot instead of a true series finale.

Approved Three’s a Crowd before audience reaction to the ending.

Allowed the finale to air in September, not May—making it feel like an extended pilot episode, not a farewell.

Prioritized John Ritter as a marketable franchise anchor over ensemble closure.


Why this matters

Once ABC decided:

“This finale must feed directly into next week’s new show,” the fate of Janet, Terri, Furley—and the original premise—was sealed.

This single decision explains:


Why Terri’s Hawaii exit is perfunctory.

Why Janet’s marriage is rushed.

Why the final scene ends with the spin-off title card instead of emotional resolution.

Why the audience is asked to invest in Jack/Vicky instead of the roommates.


➡️ ABC turned the finale into a sales pitch.

2️⃣ Producers: Michael Ross & Bernie West (Strategic Execution Failure)

Why they’re second:
They didn’t just comply—they leaned into the spin-off logic instead of resisting or balancing it.

Their critical mistakes


Treated Friends and Lovers as “Episode 1 of Three’s a Crowd”, not “Episode 172 of Three’s Company.”

Structured the final act so that:


Janet and Terri vanish emotionally.

Jack’s future matters more than the show’s history.


Assumed Robin’s Nest = automatic American success, ignoring cultural differences and chemistry realities.


What they could have done (but didn’t)


Center the finale on the trio’s bond, even if Jack moves on.

Let Jack/Vicky happen after closure, not instead of it.

Keep ambiguity instead of locking Jack into a relationship fans hadn’t embraced.


➡️ They mistook format inheritance for audience loyalty.

3️⃣ Writers: Don Nicholl, Michael Ross & Bernie West (Narrative-Level Failure)

Why they’re third:
They executed the mandate—but they made avoidable creative choices that worsened fan reaction.

Specific writing failures


Insta-romances:


Janet/Phillip lacks emotional groundwork.

Jack/Vicky escalates too fast to feel earned.




Vicky’s marriage logic is dramatically thin:


“Marriage ruins relationships—but living together won’t” feels contrived.




Terri’s exit:


No arc.

No emotional payoff.

Barely a goodbye.




Final scene priority error:


Ends on Robert Mandan’s abrasive dad joke instead of the roommates’ shared past.



The key miscalculation

They wrote plot mechanics instead of character conclusions.

➡️ The finale answers “What happens next?” instead of “What did this mean?”

4️⃣ Casting & Development Decisions (Mary Cadorette as Vicky)

Why they’re fourth:
This isn’t about talent—it’s about chemistry misjudgment.

The issue


John Ritter had lightning chemistry with:


Joyce DeWitt

Suzanne Somers

Even Priscilla Barnes (in comic tension)


With Cadorette, the energy is:


Softer

Earnest

Dramatically inert by comparison



Why this mattered

The finale hinges entirely on viewers buying Jack/Vicky as endgame.

When they didn’t:


The emotional climax collapses.

The spin-off loses oxygen immediately.

Fans retroactively resent the finale.


➡️ The finale asked viewers to love a relationship they hadn’t fallen into naturally.

5️⃣ John Ritter (Minimal, Indirect Responsibility)

Why he’s low on the list:
Ritter did exactly what he was hired to do—and did it well.

Still, one unavoidable truth


The show increasingly became The Jack Tripper Vehicle.

Ritter’s star power made the spin-off possible, which in turn distorted the ending.


But:


He didn’t write it.

He didn’t structure the finale.

He didn’t sideline Janet or Terri.


➡️ He benefited from the decision—but didn’t cause it.

6️⃣ Audience Expectations (Zero Blame, But High Impact)

Fans didn’t want:


A reboot.

A pilot.

A forced “grown-up” ending.


They wanted:


The trio together.

Emotional acknowledgment of eight years.

Possibly Jack/Janet—or at least unresolved warmth.


The finale ignored that entirely.

🔚 FINAL BLAME HIERARCHY (Condensed)


ABC Network Executives – turned the finale into a commercial.

Ross & West (Producers) – chose spin-off setup over ensemble closure.

Finale Writers – rushed relationships and sidelined core characters.

Casting/Development – misjudged Jack/Vicky chemistry.

John Ritter – only insofar as his stardom enabled the pivot.

Fans – blameless, but deeply mismatched with the creative direction.


The Core Tragedy

Three’s Company didn’t end because the story was over.

It ended because ABC wanted another product.

And the finale will always feel wrong because it isn’t a goodbye—it’s a handoff that nobody wanted to take.

It always shocked me that considering how big Three's Company was, there was never a reunion movie.

In 1986, they were planning to bring back The Ropers in an all new sitcom called "Three Apartments" with John Ritter, Joyce Dewiit, Richard Kline, and Don Knotts guest starring. So the cast were all willing to come back and portray their old characters again.

After the way they messed up the finale, you would think they would eventually do a proper send off for the fans and maybe have the movie end with a Jack and Janet wedding. :)

To begin with, thanks TMC for sharing. That was very interesting to read.

Second, when they saw that "Three's a Crowd" wasn't working, it was possible to have Jack leave Vicky, and bring back Janet for them to be together again. The issue with this is that it would have also removed Vicky's parent and changed the entire show. The writers would almost have to come back to writing "Three's Company" and they were already out of ideas for this series. Besides, Joyce didn't want to come back to TV after all this. She would have probably rejected the offer.

To come back to the original topic of this thread, what bothered me was that the very last character we see in the series was Terri when it should have been Jack or, at least, Janet. After reading TMC's post, it made me realize that there was indeed a lot worst.

It always shocked me that considering how big Three's Company was, there was never a reunion movie.

In 1986, they were planning to bring back The Ropers in an all new sitcom called "Three Apartments" with John Ritter, Joyce Dewiit, Richard Kline, and Don Knotts guest starring. So the cast were all willing to come back and portray their old characters again.

After the way they messed up the finale, you would think they would eventually do a proper send off for the fans and maybe have the movie end with a Jack and Janet wedding. :)
In 1997 they could not even come together for a 20th anniversary show. They hung up the phone on each other. So I doubt a movie would ever be in the works if they were not even talking to each other.

It always shocked me that considering how big Three's Company was, there was never a reunion movie.

In 1986, they were planning to bring back The Ropers in an all new sitcom called "Three Apartments" with John Ritter, Joyce Dewiit, Richard Kline, and Don Knotts guest starring. So the cast were all willing to come back and portray their old characters again.

After the way they messed up the finale, you would think they would eventually do a proper send off for the fans and maybe have the movie end with a Jack and Janet wedding. :)

Considering how big the sitcom Three's Company (https://share.google/aimode/pHBVdwvEORk9PUdSb) (1977-84) was, why (https://www.quora.com/Considering-how-big-the-sitcom-Threes-Company-1977-84-was-why-was-there-never-a-reunion-movie-or-show-After-the-way-they-messed-up-the-finale-you-would-think-they-would-eventually-do-a-proper-send-off-for-the-fans) was there never (https://www.perplexity.ai/search/considering-how-big-the-sitcom-TNm5ZJrcRMmWzPqZl9vSKw#0) a reunion movie or show (https://chatgpt.com/s/t_694bb2d9b4608191af2a1df3953dda13)? After the way (https://claude.ai/chat/1c210177-cb20-44ba-b744-65a5d55f854a) they messed up the finale (https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_ea296682-7351-451c-8e9e-88b3a753f9e2), you would think they would eventually do a proper send off (https://poe.com/s/taLUSAYyu6UqxxHCHugB) for the fans.

It really was not a send off but a transition to the new show. Everyone always hates the final episode on successful sitcoms. I cannot think of one (Maybe Newhart) where fans loved the final show. Janet getting married was rushed but it still was a final curtain call for these lost wanderers to move on.

It always shocked me that considering how big Three's Company was, there was never a reunion movie.

In 1986, they were planning to bring back The Ropers in an all new sitcom called "Three Apartments" with John Ritter, Joyce Dewiit, Richard Kline, and Don Knotts guest starring. So the cast were all willing to come back and portray their old characters again.

After the way they messed up the finale, you would think they would eventually do a proper send off for the fans and maybe have the movie end with a Jack and Janet wedding. :)

To tell you the truth, the thought never really occurred to me until now, about why there was never a Three's Company reunion movie or limited run revival series. I agree that when John Ritter passed away in 2003, that pretty much ended any hope for a formal reunion.

Plus, I don't even know if Joyce DeWitt wanted to go back to doing television full-time after Three's Company, especially after the way that she was treated towards the end. Plus, Priscilla Barnes had gone on record in saying that her time working on Three's Company was the worst time in her career.

If there was a reunion project proposed, then we still would have to deal with the backstage controversies with Suzanne Somers. So that was probably another thing that I doubt that they would want to revisit.

I'm guessing that Three's a Crowd and its short-run, kind of gave the higher ups the impression that we already had a glimpse of Jack Tripper's life out of Apartment 201, since they flat out "rejected" it, it wouldn't be worth the trouble or time to go further.

Your awesome TMC!

If you get a chance buddy,please have whoever is maintaining your account login and reply to my PM :)

Thank you.......

Has Joyce and/or Priscilla ever specifically addressed the series finale and the arguable way that their characters were marginalized (and maybe even, to a certain extent, character assassinated) as a means so promoting Three's a Crowd? I'm sure that they did at some point or another. Like, has Joyce ever said anything about them just randomly marrying Janet off to some bland, random guy that she had only recently met. Or what about Priscilla's character, only getting maybe, a brief, offhand mention about her moving to Hawaii?

In 1997 they could not even come together for a 20th anniversary show. They hung up the phone on each other. So I doubt a movie would ever be in the works if they were not even talking to each other.

Didn't John Ritter say once on some late-night talk show (it may have been Conan O'Brien's show) like half-jokingly, that if there was ever going to be a proper Three's Company reunion show, then it would open with Chrissy's funeral? Of course, Suzanne Somers later claimed that she was able to briefly reconcile with John (with John's wife, Amy Yasbeck being a mediator of sorts) shortly before John passed. But it just goes to show how much lingering resentment John and Joyce seemed to have towards Suzanne long after Three's Company ended. I don't think that Joyce herself, even saw or spoke to Suzanne again for over 30 years until they finally "buried the hatchet" (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/suzanne-somers-joyce-dewitt-reunite_n_1252279) in 2012.

Jenilee Harrison first episode of Dallas aired a few weeks after the Three's Company finale. She might have been under contract with CBS at the time.

The Ropers should have been there. I don't know what Norman Fell and Audra Lindley were doing at the time. I wonder if the producers were being cheap and didn't want to pay them big bucks for 1 episode.

It seems like the producers didn't care about the Three's Company fans and only cared about John Ritter and the new show Three's a Crowd.

At this point, I think that it was kind of "par for the course" that the producers would just coldly and systematically dispose of characters that they in their perspectives, no longer had any use for. They in the final episode, did it with Janet and Terri and to a lesser extent, Larry and Mr. Furley. And before that, they did it with Cindy, whose character was last seen in the infamous "Janet Wigs Out" episode and disappeared without any proper sense of closure.

Chrissy's departure was murkier because of the controversial circumstances behind Suzanne Somers' real life exit from the series. But even without that, there was Lana also suddenly being written out once she outlived her supposed "usefulness". Even with the Ropers, they were never brought back full-time after the collapse of their spin-off series because the producers liked the idea only having to pay one actor (in this case, Don Knotts) than two at a time (Norman Fell and Audra Lindley).

It was rushed and cheaply made. Sheer garbage.

I don't know how to properly say this, but the final episode (https://share.google/aimode/GaUHGSsAkPzEf0qS1) of Three's Company is just plain (https://claude.ai/chat/bc541b81-f0a2-4c1a-a12b-39bace36cb47) "weird" (https://www.facebook.com/groups/classic.television.shows.group/posts/1285074058807254/?comment_id=1286356325345694&__cft__[0]=AZYLEYhO4dITQRqr5CKSueacbgEADIBJ5GFHLZR2mu-jp3utjhH7vwlMgx-gK8kf6WlW6rPleLuupxwSP-p82GyLLcXjENmpzxfxes1xf0cAeYzeFbX70lTTY1HT-1MPeWbrHsD2yKMTQdgAcVBR0_PQqxJ5GLobaMvOSTaFHWeTX4_qJuUvtr3Ny5r6LSjpIkmooTMx7ecsN4-AeWwgoFUo&__tn__=R]-R). It's like, part of it is essentially, a backdoor pilot (https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/aToTsdCSXZnn74WcxupLJ) of sorts, for Three's a Crowd (https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6a5328aa5d7c81919c5ab63a2662c04f). Another part is a traditional series finale (https://gemini.google.com/app/d21fa782d7320dbd). While you can also look at "Friends and Lovers" (https://www.google.com/search?q=Why+is+the+series+finale+of+%22Three%27s+Company%22+from+1984%2C+%22Friends+and+Lovers%22+so+disliked%3F&sca_esv=a3fe2b8fc44181c1&sxsrf=APpeQnvHX1pmkKhW7yhFj3AN6GKwi7TxnA%3A1783833861806&ei=BSVTapX-L8fLkPIP8-TJ2Q8&biw=1235&bih=547&ved=0ahUKEwjVlK79ssyVAxXHJUQIHXNyMvsQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Why+is+the+series+finale+of+%22Three%27s+Company%22+from+1984%2C+%22Friends+and+Lovers%22+so+disliked%3F&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz-serp) as a pseudo-Season 9 premiere for Three's Company. ABC in their infinite wisdom, decide to air the series finale of one of their biggest sitcoms in the month of September as pretty much, a one-off special to directly lead into (https://www.meta.ai/prompt/2e5b7e30-c373-447e-b54d-5fa5111a72cd) a revamped, paired down version of said show.

ABC must've had a lot of faith in (https://www.perplexity.ai/search/93cf31e7-b229-4ddb-9aee-1f7d1c3ca4dd) Three's a Crowd if they were going to have its formal series premiere episode air exactly one week after (https://www.kimi.com/share/19f54dcc-4272-8987-8000-000071e96f21) the series finale of Three's Company. When taken out of context, the final scene in "Friends and Lovers" (https://chat.deepseek.com/share/jrelq4zydpk2hmkxhr), where Mr. Bradford barges in to tell Jack (while he's in bed with Mr. Bradford's daughter) that he's his new landlord (https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw_a8a17d79-b4b0-4b74-bf98-b105ea4601d1) just comes across as extremely awkward and off-putting.

Like I said before, the ending when isolated, just feels like a cruel twist ending. It's right up there if you ask me, with the "Jack's Navy Pal" episode, where the whole payoff for Jack is uncomfortably dark, cynical (https://chat.mistral.ai/chat/9a45ee0c-0e5c-4b16-8b28-ba8e34d812b8), and downbeat.