This really got me thinking again after watching Dave Sundstrom's YouTube video (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=6268063&postcount=44) about what he believes are the top five reasons why Three's a Crowd (https://web.archive.org/web/20061031125202/http://www.jumptheshark.com/t/threesacrowd.htm) failed (https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/should-jack-and-janet-have-gotten-married-at-the-end-of-threes-company.4588955/post-72915059). There's already been a thread (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=277021) that argues about whether or not the Vicky character (as portrayed by Mary Cadorette (https://www.google.com/search?q=recent+datalounge+%22Mary+Cadorette%22&oq=recent+datalounge+%22Mary+Cadorette%22&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRigATIHCAUQIRigAdIBCTc1NjBqMGoxNagCCLACAQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)) was the main root of the problem (https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/should-jack-and-janet-have-gotten-married-at-the-end-of-threes-company.4588955/post-72915059) if you will but not her dad James as portrayed by (https://maroonmondays.blogspot.com/2014/05/1sw-threes-crowd.html) Robert Mandan (https://threescompany.fandom.com/wiki/Robert_Mandan).

As others have pointed out (https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/threes-company-1977-to-1984.993241/page-20#post-32132143), Mr. Bradford (and I don't exactly know how much that's on the writing and/or direction (https://jacksonupperco.com/2015/07/29/when-three-became-a-crowd-a-look-at-the-last-threes-company-spin-off/) and how much that's on Robert Mandan himself) was an abrasive (https://www.looper.com/843770/the-threes-company-finale-still-bothers-fans-to-this-day/), overbearing jerk (https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/89009-threes-company-general-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=6161908) and needed to be toned down (https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/89009-threes-company-general-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=6692239) by 50%. His dislike (https://web.archive.org/web/20140406110252/http://forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/topic/3111823-threes-company/page-9#entry14152209) of Jack was completely uncalled for (https://www.reddit.com/r/80s/comments/bxd54y/comment/eqfxgf0/) and on top of it all, he never really gave Jack a break (https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/89009-threes-company-general-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=6162156).

And it was absolutely hypocritical of James to be all judgmental and against his daughter's relationship with Jack when he messed up his own marriage (https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/89009-threes-company-general-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=6144900) with Vicky's mom (https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/89009-threes-company-general-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=6167962).

I have been looking at this show with a similar premise that this show failed because of John himself. I had always assumed that Ritter was a team player, but lately I have been postulating that the last seasons solely benefited John more than the rest of the supporting cast. I think John (with an enormous ego) wanted the spin-off to have very weak actors/supporting cast. Of course, there had to be some sort of foil so they offered Mandan a role to keep Tripper in his place.

I honestly don't understand why this spinoff was created in the first place. The big show, TC, was slipping in the ratings. It wasn't slipping because viewers didn't like Janet, Terri, Larry or Mr. Furley. It was losing ratings because of recycled scripts- hey let's have another misunderstanding at Jack's Bistro (yeah, that will get people to tune in!) or let's have an episode where Terri wants to have her pet, Blinky the goldfiish, in the apartment. But Shhh!!!! Don't tell the landlord or they might be evicted. Oh no!

I think Jack Tripper was still likeable, but many viewers grew weary. Vicki was very mundane~boring and her father (Mandan) too intrusive and mean. It's not a funny scenario. TAC has some funny moments, but not enough to really like the show. I'm thinking the spinoff was created to give Ritter a raise while keeping TC for a 9th season would have caused salaries to be frozen or reduced.

[Added] I think TV began to change with Family Ties and the Cosby Show and Cheers. I think the change moved humor away from slapstick physical comedy to more witty, sophisticated comedy. I think writers and producers who were producing shows in the 1970s were surprised in the change of viewers' tastes. I'm far from an expert on this shift, but people wanted to see something different than people tripping over brooms and mopping pails.

I also think Life with Lucy [1986] was also doomed. Lucille Ball was ignorant that TV had changed and none of the producers had the gumption to challenge the Queen of Comedy that her show would fail without major revisions.

John Ritter was the reason TAC failed.

The fact that JR did this show in the first place is proof that he thought viewers only watched TC for him.

A lot of viewers (myself included) were upset about how TC ended. Because of how TC ended, I couldn't care less about TAC.

Other viewers were upset about Suzanne Somers departure and stopped caring about TC after that.

There is truth in the posts written by both rusty spike and Dianne3.

Three's a Crowd was originally pitched to the network as a spinoff starring Richard Kline, with ABC turning it down. The producers took another swing at it this time with the lead being John Ritter, and the network was now interested. Obviously John had tremendous leverage, and he used it. There can be no other explanation possible for the ludicrous casting of Mary Cadorette as the female lead. When Jenilee Harrison was replaced by Pricilla Barnes Ritter was asked by a reporter why the change was made, his response, "they" wanted someone with more experience. The producers (otherwise known as they) gave a similar response, "too young and inexperienced". Take a look at her credits and then take a look at Cadorette's credits going into Three's a Crowd! The single most important casting decision other than Ritter and this is who is picked. Something was wrong, something was definitely wrong. This is the female lead in it what was going to be a romantic comedy. Nothing else mattered if the casting of this part was bungled, and it was bungled.

The relationship between Jack and Vicki was going to have to sizzle, the show was going to have to be something different than Three's Company. Replacing two roommates with one live-in girlfriend, and a landlord with a would-be father-in-law with little else new was not going to cut it. I think the audience began to resent the reworked series and it showed as the season progressed. Six out of the last 11 episodes fell out of the top 40 with one ranking in 54th place!

There is truth in the posts written by both rusty spike and Dianne3.

Three's a Crowd was originally pitched to the network as a spinoff starring Richard Kline, with ABC turning it down. The producers took another swing at it this time with the lead being John Ritter, and the network was now interested. Obviously John had tremendous leverage, and he used it. There can be no other explanation possible for the ludicrous casting of Mary Cadorette as the female lead. When Jenilee Harrison was replaced by Pricilla Barnes Ritter was asked by a reporter why the change was made, his response, "they" wanted someone with more experience. The producers (otherwise known as they) gave a similar response, "too young and inexperienced". Take a look at her credits and then take a look at Cadorette's credits going into Three's a Crowd! The single most important casting decision other than Ritter and this is who is picked. Something was wrong, something was definitely wrong. This is the female lead in it what was going to be a romantic comedy. Nothing else mattered if the casting of this part was bungled, and it was bungled.

The relationship between Jack and Vicki was going to have to sizzle, the show was going to have to be something different than Three's Company. Replacing two roommates with one live-in girlfriend, and a landlord with a would-be father-in-law with little else new was not going to cut it. I think the audience began to resent the reworked series and it showed as the season progressed. Six out of the last 11 episodes fell out of the top 40 with one ranking in 54th place!

I honestly don't understand why this spinoff was created in the first place.

:confused: I thought this was common knowledge?

Three's Company, The Ropers and Three's a Crowd were based on both Man About the House and its spinoffs. Three's Company=Man About the House, The Ropers=George and Mildred and Three's a Crowd=Robin's Nest.

There is truth in the posts written by both rusty spike and Dianne3.

Three's a Crowd was originally pitched to the network as a spinoff starring Richard Kline, with ABC turning it down. The producers took another swing at it this time with the lead being John Ritter, and the network was now interested.

Three's Company was based on a Britcom called Man About the House. Man About the House had two spinoffs, 1) George and Mildred and 2) Robin's Nest. George and Mildred became "The Ropers" and Robin's Nest became "Three's a Crowd." That's all there is to it.

Three's Company was based on a Britcom called Man About the House. Man About the House had two spinoffs, 1) George and Mildred and 2) Robin's Nest. George and Mildred became "The Ropers" and Robin's Nest became "Three's a Crowd." That's all there is to it.

I think everyone here knows that, so what? The George and Mildred spin-off was done after Man About the House concluded its run. The characters were not rushed off the mother series. The George and Mildred characters were very involved in the episode plots, especially as the series moved along, the Ropers of America were not ready for their own series, to be honest I don't know if they ever would have been. The show was at it's best with Jack, Janet, Chrissy and Ropers.

We've discussed Three's a Crowd, why you don't this, I don't know, the couple was the key to that series, it's that simple! I've covered the ratings in a previous post week by week, the audience lost interest in the series with the last four episodes finishing out of the top 40.

I think everyone here knows that, so what?

I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to someone else who said they didn't understand why the spinoff was created.

I have been looking at this show with a similar premise that this show failed because of John himself. I had always assumed that Ritter was a team player, but lately I have been postulating that the last seasons solely benefited John more than the rest of the supporting cast. I think John (with an enormous ego) wanted the spin-off to have very weak actors/supporting cast. Of course, there had to be some sort of foil so they offered Mandan a role to keep Tripper in his place.

I honestly don't understand why this spinoff was created in the first place. The big show, TC, was slipping in the ratings. It wasn't slipping because viewers didn't like Janet, Terri, Larry or Mr. Furley. It was losing ratings because of recycled scripts- hey let's have another misunderstanding at Jack's Bistro (yeah, that will get people to tune in!) or let's have an episode where Terri wants to have her pet, Blinky the goldfiish, in the apartment. But Shhh!!!! Don't tell the landlord or they might be evicted. Oh no!

I think Jack Tripper was still likeable, but many viewers grew weary. Vicki was very mundane~boring and her father (Mandan) too intrusive and mean. It's not a funny scenario. TAC has some funny moments, but not enough to really like the show. I'm thinking the spinoff was created to give Ritter a raise while keeping TC for a 9th season would have caused salaries to be frozen or reduced.

[Added] I think TV began to change with Family Ties and the Cosby Show and Cheers. I think the change moved humor away from slapstick physical comedy to more witty, sophisticated comedy. I think writers and producers who were producing shows in the 1970s were surprised in the change of viewers' tastes. I'm far from an expert on this shift, but people wanted to see something different than people tripping over brooms and mopping pails.

I also think Life with Lucy [1986] was also doomed. Lucille Ball was ignorant that TV had changed and none of the producers had the gumption to challenge the Queen of Comedy that her show would fail without major revisions.

Perhaps the root of the issue (https://www.datalounge.com/thread/34831851-what-tv-shows-from-your-youth-just-don%E2%80%99t-hold-up-anymore-) or problem is that a lot of older (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=446171) sitcom writers and producers from this time were still heavily influenced by classic Vaudeville (https://www.google.com/search?q=Vaudeville-influence+in+sitcoms&sca_esv=509bbfbba140ee12&biw=1600&bih=773&sxsrf=AE3TifNMo_UETCnldmnhYq0mWFxp7CqIpw%3A1756446464549&ei=AD-xaJr2IIraptQPvf3cqAU&ved=0ahUKEwia9tf8qK-PAxUKrYkEHb0-F1U4ChDh1QMIEA&uact=5&oq=Vaudeville-influence+in+sitcoms&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiH1ZhdWRldmlsbGUtaW5mbHVlbmNlIGluIHNpdGNvbXMyCxAAGIAEGJECGIoFMgUQABiABDIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHjIEEAAYHkjPH1CiAViUHXAAeAKQAQCYAYMKoAG0H6oBBzUtMS4xLjK4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgOgAt8NwgIEEAAYR8ICBBAjGCfCAg4QABiABBiRAhixAxiKBcICERAAGIAEGJECGLEDGIMBGIoFwgIWEC4YgAQYsQMYQxjUAhjHARiKBRivAcICERAuGIAEGJECGNEDGMcBGIoFwgIKEAAYgAQYQxiKBcICBRAuGIAEmAMAiAYBkAYIkgcHMS41LTEuMaAHmSmyBwU1LTEuMbgHnw3CBwU0LTEuMsgHqQE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp). So there, you got the physical humor (https://www.google.com/search?q=Physical+humor+in+sitcoms&sca_esv=509bbfbba140ee12&biw=1600&bih=773&sxsrf=AE3TifMn95-MoQssPYFlLGYbWKnAGNgMog%3A1756446586960&ei=ej-xaJOsOqiwptQP6smwiQk&ved=0ahUKEwiT0Ye3qa-PAxUomIkEHeokLJEQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Physical+humor+in+sitcoms&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiGVBoeXNpY2FsIGh1bW9yIGluIHNpdGNvbXMyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGKIEGIkFMggQABiABBiiBEjfLFAAWNkbcAB4AJABAJgBhwygAYoRqgELMC4yLjAuMS44LTG4AQPIAQD4AQH4AQKYAgOgArsFmAMAkgcHMC4yLjAuMaAHnRCyBwcwLjIuMC4xuAe7BcIHBTMtMi4xyAcx&sclient=gws-wiz-serp), the obvious gags (https://www.google.com/search?q=Obvious+gags+in+sitcoms&sca_esv=509bbfbba140ee12&biw=1600&bih=773&sxsrf=AE3TifNxa2kPYPlWrBy0pTL3l71ERsuPMQ%3A1756446688758&ei=4D-xaJ2FLo-gptQPga2s-Qw&ved=0ahUKEwid9cznqa-PAxUPkIkEHYEWK88Q4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Obvious+gags+in+sitcoms&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiF09idmlvdXMgZ2FncyBpbiBzaXRjb21zMgUQABjvBTIFEAAY7wUyBRAAGO8FMgUQABjvBTIIEAAYgAQYogRI9BBQAFjIDXAAeAGQAQCYAaICoAGNB6oBBTAuMS4zuAEDyAEA-AEBmAIDoAKlBZgDAJIHAzItM6AHsA2yBwMyLTO4B6UFwgcFMy0yLjHIBzM&sclient=gws-wiz-serp), and the cutesy/corny jokes (https://www.google.com/search?q=Cutesy%2Fcorny+jokes+in+sitcoms&sca_esv=509bbfbba140ee12&biw=1600&bih=773&sxsrf=AE3TifO9rHvzH8hg7o7PNPVNyYuPxdmySA%3A1756446706669&ei=8j-xaL3UKNLYptQP2rSMyAc&ved=0ahUKEwi9lZLwqa-PAxVSrIkEHVoaA3kQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Cutesy%2Fcorny+jokes+in+sitcoms&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHUN1dGVzeS9jb3JueSBqb2tlcyBpbiBzaXRjb21zMgUQABjvBTIFEAAY7wUyCBAAGIAEGKIEMgUQABjvBTIIEAAYogQYiQVIyCJQAFirIHABeAGQAQCYAYwDoAG9C6oBBzAuMS4xLjO4AQPIAQD4AQH4AQKYAgWgArkJmAMAkgcJMS4xLjEuMS4xoAf1F7IHCTAuMS4xLjEuMbgHqAnCBwMzLTXIB0U&sclient=gws-wiz-serp). As the '80s went on (https://www.google.com/search?q=How+did+American+television+sitcoms+evolve+in+the+1980s&oq=How+did+American+television+sitcoms+evolve+in+the+1980s&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRigATIHCAUQIRigAdIBCjExOTIzajBqMTWoAgywAgHxBeH8ay-Tl1f_&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8), sitcoms really started to change (https://www.quora.com/Were-the-1970s-and-80s-the-last-time-that-Vaudeville-influenced-older-producers-and-studio-executives-had-most-of-the-power-in-Hollywood-Were-sitcoms-still-loaded-with-physical-humor-obvious-gags-and-cutesy-corny/answer/S-Davis-252). Instead of a heavy Vaudeville-influence (https://www.google.com/search?q=How+did+American+television+sitcoms+begin+to+move+away+from+a+heavy+Vaudeville+influence&sca_esv=34443d8b2c0c5fa7&sxsrf=AE3TifNgmeGMg-pprhcfc3Gqm4eT0LQbCw%3A1756447674233&ei=ukOxaOjnDeySwbkP8IzTsQs&ved=0ahUKEwjorMG9ra-PAxVsSTABHXDGNLYQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=How+did+American+television+sitcoms+begin+to+move+away+from+a+heavy+Vaudeville+influence&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiWEhvdyBkaWQgQW1lcmljYW4gdGVsZXZpc2lvbiBzaXRjb21zIGJlZ2luIHRvIG1vdmUgYXdheSBmcm9tIGEgaGVhdnkgVmF1ZGV2aWxsZSBpbmZsdWVuY2UyBBAhGApImI8BULECWOeKAXAJeACQAQGYAaYIoAGIdqoBEDAuNS4xNi45LjcuNS4wLjG4AQPIAQD4AQGYAiKgAqZKwgIOEAAYgAQYsAMYhgMYigXCAggQABiwAxjvBcICCxAAGLADGKIEGIkFwgILEAAYgAQYsAMYogTCAgQQIxgnwgIIEAAYogQYiQXCAgUQABjvBcICBRAhGKABwgIFECEYqwLCAggQABiABBiiBJgDAIgGAZAGCJIHDzguMC4xMC4xMC41LjAuMaAH8bcBsgcNMi0xMC4xMC41LjAuMbgHmEnCBwgyLTUuMjIuN8gH8AM&sclient=gws-wiz-serp), television became more about observational humor (https://www.google.com/search?q=Observational+humor+in+sitcoms&sca_esv=509bbfbba140ee12&biw=1600&bih=773&sxsrf=AE3TifOmGeicGz0NRt0TPr-ogH3xLJjjuQ%3A1756446473254&ei=CT-xaKSoD7-iptQPu5-uiQQ&ved=0ahUKEwjk0OuAqa-PAxU_kYkEHbuPK0EQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Observational+humor+in+sitcoms&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHk9ic2VydmF0aW9uYWwgaHVtb3IgaW4gc2l0Y29tczIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHkj1D1AAWP4NcAF4AZABAJgBqAKgAYAEqgEDMi0yuAEDyAEA-AEB-AECmAIDoAL2BKgCFMICBxAjGCcY6gLCAhQQABiABBiRAhi0AhiKBRjqAtgBAcICFBAAGIAEGOMEGLQCGOkEGOoC2AEBmAM28QVMkytpslDxGroGBggBEAEYAZIHBzEuMC4xLjGgB7ELsgcFMi0xLjG4B78EwgcFNC0yLjHIB2w&sclient=gws-wiz-serp), realistic portrayals (https://www.google.com/search?q=Realistic+portrayals+in+sitcoms&sca_esv=509bbfbba140ee12&biw=1600&bih=773&sxsrf=AE3TifMJwFbK0r9pkGi9_3Pmtfkq5OjkgQ%3A1756446515129&ei=Mz-xaK_WB4ygptQPhbazqAw&ved=0ahUKEwjvu-eUqa-PAxUMkIkEHQXbDMUQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Realistic+portrayals+in+sitcoms&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiH1JlYWxpc3RpYyBwb3J0cmF5YWxzIGluIHNpdGNvbXMyBRAAGO8FMggQABiiBBiJBTIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBEjCKFAAWMAlcAB4AZABAJgB2wKgAa4MqgEHMC4xLjIuM7gBA8gBAPgBAfgBApgCBKAC0wiYAwCSBwUyLTIuMqAHmRayBwUyLTIuMrgH0wjCBwMzLTTIBzo&sclient=gws-wiz-serp), and gutting honesty (https://www.google.com/search?q=Gutting+honesty+in+sitcoms&sca_esv=509bbfbba140ee12&biw=1600&bih=773&sxsrf=AE3TifOb2uxJysMqtzE-JCMIgk-Rk-MGFQ%3A1756446554750&ei=Wj-xaM7GLZ7-ptQPxZS2yA0&ved=0ahUKEwjO29mnqa-PAxUev4kEHUWKDdkQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Gutting+honesty+in+sitcoms&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiGkd1dHRpbmcgaG9uZXN0eSBpbiBzaXRjb21zMggQABiiBBiJBTIFEAAY7wUyBRAAGO8FMgUQABjvBTIIEAAYogQYiQVItBdQAFjVD3AAeACQAQCYAdQDoAHpCaoBBzItMi4xLjG4AQPIAQD4AQH4AQKYAgOgAtcGwgIGEAAYBxgemAMAkgcFMi0yLjGgB7oQsgcFMi0yLjG4B9cGwgcFMy0yLjHIBzo&sclient=gws-wiz-serp). All in all, it became more real and less staged and phony.

Who ever said this (https://www.reddit.com/r/threescompany/comments/1sai9se/comment/odwbnf0/) really hit the nail on the head:
The father character (James) just ruins the show. Who wants to see Jack picked apart every week by a humorless dude with no humanity? It’s just not enjoyable. It’s stressful and unfunny.

Was "Three's A Crowd" a poor choice to name the show? (https://www.reddit.com/r/threescompany/comments/1t8882c/comment/ol39d12/)

I don't think the title doomed the show. I think one of two other things doomed it: either Robert Mandan or his given scripts.

Robert Mandan was supposed to be playing the sitcoms antagonist - the hostile, conceited, overbearing father from hell who hates his daughter's boyfriend and declares war against his daughter's relationship with him while he's simultaneously their landlord. The trouble is his character wasn't funny. I didn't find him amusing at all. This character was just a filthy creature - a boring and repulsive sh--head. A character who apparently didn't really belong in a sitcom. He looked and sounded like someone who should have been on Dynasty or Falcon Crest. He came across more like Alexis Carrington's cousin or Angela Channing's twin brother. I've seen Robert Mandan in other things, so I know he's good at acting, so I truly hesitate to blame him. I think that the scripts written for his character were to blame.

Antagonists on sitcoms should still be funny. (e.g. C.C. on The Nanny, Endora on Bewitched, Eddie on Leave It To Beaver, Nigel on The Drew Carey Show, Hyacinth on Keeping Up Appearances, The principal on Our Miss Brooks, Archie on All In The Family, George on The Jeffersons, Esther on Sanford and Son, and Mother Jefferson on The Jeffersons.) With Mandan's character on Three's A Crowd, the writers missed the target.