I THINK 'Three's A Crowd' Failed Because Of The Vicky Character

[TVFactFan]

It failed because it was season 9 of Three's Company without

Janet
terri
Mr. Furley
Larry

[TMC]

Originally Posted by eleri

It wasn't friends with benefits. It was an exclusive, romantic relationship. She just didn't want to put a ring on it.



That was an 80s thing. Clothes (and hair) were large and the "businesswoman" look was in. I suggested on another thread that 80s fashions killed TC. When Janet and Terri converted to the new look (and you could no longer tell if Terri was braless), the shows ratings tanked almost overnight.



No, the point of TAC was that the unimaginative folks at DLT expected to replicate the success of Robin's Nest at a low cost by using the same scripts, ignoring the myriad differences between the circumstances. The most notable difference was that Man About the House was at the height of its popularity when it ended, and it's audience was eager for a sequel. TC had fallen off the radar by the end of its 8th season.

Somebody on the old IMDb forums commented on how unflattering a dresser Vicky Bradford was. I mean she dressed conservatively and business like, but it was also very unappealing, "stiff", and generally unstylish.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by TMC

Somebody on the old IMDb forums commented on how unflattering a dresser Vicky Bradford was. I mean she dressed conservatively and business like, but it was also very unappealing and unstylish.

well she was a plain jane and that's the vibe they wanted the character to give off

[TMC]

Originally Posted by Mr. Television

In the end, the real reason that TAC failed was because it couldn't compete with The A-Team. I don't think anything they could have done would have changed that. TC was a tired show and pairing Jack and Janet together wouldn't have helped. Maybe they should have just done a final 9th season of TC and ended it in style.

According to news articles of the time (according to the "Boston Globe," "New York Times," "Philadelphia Inquirer," and "Providence Journal" as well as the Canadian publications "The Gazette" in Montreal and "The Globe and Mail" in Toronto), this show finished higher in the ratings than Miami Vice during the 1984-85 season. What's more, it had about the same popularity of Who's the Boss? Interesting, when you consider how long those other two survived. Also, Three's a Crowd began its run with decent ratings (one of ABC's few modest successes that season), yet after showing initial promise (September-October 1984) was already considered for the chopping-block within a few months (February-March 1985).

On the flip-side, ABC was really struggling at that time and John Ritter was making a lot of money ($100,000 per episode). Still, when the show finished taping in February 1985, plans were to begin work on it again that August. But as the story goes, John Ritter turned down ABC's offer of a half-season renewal is the reason it did not last.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by TMC

According to news articles of the time (according to the "Boston Globe," "New York Times," "Philadelphia Inquirer," and "Providence Journal" as well as the Canadian publications "The Gazette" in Montreal and "The Globe and Mail" in Toronto), this show finished higher in the ratings than Miami Vice during the 1984-85 season. What's more, it had about the same popularity of Who's the Boss. Interesting, when you consider how long those other two survived. Also, Three's a Crowd began it's run with decent ratings (one of ABC's few modest successes that season), yet after showing initial promise (September-October 1984) was already considered for the chopping-block within a few months (February-March 1985).

On the flip-side, ABC was really struggling at that time and John Ritter was making a lot of money ($100,000 per episode). Still, when the show finished taping in February, 1985, plans were to begin work on it again that August. But as the story goes, John Ritter turned down ABC's offer of a half-season renewal is the reason it did not last.

Not sure why the expectations was so high since TC itself was no longer a top ten show

[TV Guy]

Miami Vice was a critically acclaimed show that was in its first season (it also aired at a later hour when viewership was lower). NBC was willing to nurture it. “Who’s the Boss” also had a creative spark and ABC was willing to be patient with it.

“Three’s a Crowd” was a tired retooling of a show, “Three’s Company”, that was also tired. There was no reason to believe that the ratings would grow over time (unlike the other two shows you mentioned). Creatively, the show wasn’t good; the new supporting cast simply didn’t work. You can bet that ABC took all of this into account when they decided on the show’s fate.

[TVFactFan]

I will always believe the show would have done better if it wasn't no permanent Mr. Bradford around

[TV Guy]

Certainly it would have been better had his role been smaller. And if they had cast a female lead who had chemistry with John Ritter and had more charisma. Vicky was so dull and unfunny.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by TV Guy

Certainly it would have been better had his role been smaller. And if they had cast a female lead who had chemistry with John Ritter and had more charisma. Vicky was so dull and unfunny.

They were probably trying to attract a older audience which was a mistake.

[thejasoomian]

Originally Posted by TV Guy

Certainly it would have been better had his role been smaller. And if they had cast a female lead who had chemistry with John Ritter and had more charisma. Vicky was so dull and unfunny.

I don't agree with any of this statement.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by thejasoomian

[/B]


I don't agree with any of this statement.

why?

[TMC]

I don't know how to properly explain it given that while I was around when Three's A Crowd was originally running, I was still a tad bit young. But anyway, thus anybody here feel that the whole premise around Vicky not wanting to get married was a huge turn-off in the 1980s and today?

[thejasoomian]

Originally Posted by TMC

I don't know how to properly explain it given that while I was around when Three's A Crowd was originally running, I was still a tad bit young. But anyway, thus anybody here feel that the whole premise around Vicky not wanting to get married was a huge turn-off in the 1980s and today?

Not really. I thought she had a good reason in which she explained in Friends and Lovers. She would have eventually asked Jack to marry her according to what I read.

[thejasoomian]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

why?

Because I thought Jack and Vicky ( John & Mary) had great chemistry together.
And she had great timing ( she did a couple of years of stage) with John. And John Ritter thought so too.

[Mr. Television]

Originally Posted by thejasoomian

Not really. I thought she had a good reason in which she explained in Friends and Lovers. She would have eventually asked Jack to marry her according to what I read.

They were supposed to get married in the second season premiere.