Why Did 'Three's a Crowd' Fail (Last One Season)?

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by glickmam

I think what Mace Dolex is referring to is the fact that The Cosby Show heavily revolutionized how sitcoms were seen, and how it sort of made farce comedy a very tough sell to go by, given that the show was very witty and very sophisticated.

It was time for the show to end anyway, people in their 30's don't live together

[rusty spike]

The father-in-law easily surpassed annoying in his meddling. It just wasn't funny. Just maybe the show would have been funny if they had occasional scenes of Jack and Felipe in the kitchen.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by glickmam

I think what Mace Dolex is referring to is the fact that The Cosby Show heavily revolutionized how sitcoms were seen, and how it sort of made farce comedy a very tough sell to go by, given that viewers now wanted their sitcoms to be witty and sophisticated.

By the mid-'80s the Miller-Boyett team were the only ones that I can immediately think of, who were relatively successful at doing decidedly farcical type sitcoms. But those sitcoms were more family oriented than the more adult Three's Company.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

The show failed because it was Three's Company without Larry, Terri, Janet, and Mr. Furley.

Somebody else said that Three's a Crowd and The Ropers for that matter, didn't work because unlike the British spinoffs (Robin's Nest and George and Mildred respectively) there was nothing appealing to audiences to make them keep tuning in.

In the case of Three's a Crowd, the whole premise and the way it came about was rushed into production. And instead of Jack Tripper being the fun playboy who was getting into trouble like on Three's Company, he was now a trapped man in a sexless and dull relationship. He was also stuck with with unappealing characters, who are merely filler with no charisma.

[Duster76]

What's the old saying, don't sell the steak, sell the sizzle. What were they rolling out here from the audience perspective, another nontraditional living situation. Except traditions were changing, in 1980 there were 1.5 million couples living together without being married, by 1984 it was about 2 million. So it was kind of like, they're not married, OK, big deal, what's the rest of it, and the rest of it sounded similar to Three's Company. If the audience was getting tired of Three's Company, how was this banality going to generate any new enthusiasm. And to add insult to injury casting Mary Cordette as the female lead, that was supposed to make the series appointment television! This relationship had to grab the audience by the lapels, and there was nothing like that going on here.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by Duster76

What's the old saying, don't sell the steak, sell the sizzle. What were they rolling out here from the audience perspective, another nontraditional living situation. Except traditions were changing, in 1980 there were 1.5 million couples living together without being married, by 1984 it was about 2 million. So it was kind of like, they're not married, OK, big deal, what's the rest of it, and the rest of it sounded similar to Three's Company. If the audience was getting tired of Three's Company, how was this banality going to generate any new enthusiasm. And to add insult to injury casting Mary Cordette as the female lead, that was supposed to make the series appointment television! This relationship had to grab the audience by the lapels, and there was nothing like that going on here.

Is it at this point, far-fetched to say that Mary Cadorette is one of the worst actresses to be the lead or main character on a major, network sitcom? I've previously addressed that she never really landed another long lasting, high profile acting gig after Three's a Crowd, and she was all but done with Hollywood come the year 2000.

[thejasoomian]

Mary Cadorette graduated from the University of Connecticut with a BFA in Dramatic Arts and Theater with honors. She had great timing and did theater before joining "Three's A Crowd". She opened a very successful restaurant called "Mary's Lamb" that many celebrities went too. It took a lot of her time and she enjoyed it. It was perfect for in between acting jobs. She also invested her 3's money wisely and later sold the restaurant for a price " I couldn't refuse" . Unfortunately her mother suffered a bad stroke and Mary decided to move back to Connecticut to take care of her.

Just for the record only about 20% of all actors make it big the rest pretty much starve and live from paycheck to paycheck.

I thought Mary Cadorette was a fine actress. I really enjoyed seeing her beautiful face during every episode of Three's A Crowd.

[CJMD03]

Bad actors, scripts, etc.

[TMC]

Joyce DeWitt and Priscilla Barnes were recently asked about Three's a Crowd and the sneaky way that their characters on Three's Company were cast aside to set up this solo spin-off for John Ritter.

According to Joyce, the lack of success in Three's a Crowd was rooted in the fact that the producers and network so underestimated the relationship between Jack Tripper and the other characters and the audience. Janet, Terri, Larry, and Mr. Furley just disappeared without any real transition, preparation, or evolution. And the manner of which that they did it was too harsh and too difficult.

[CJMD03]

But Ritter was behind it all in writing them out that way and karma came back on him.

[TMC]

I've been reading a discussion about characters who just couldn't carry a spin-off and Three's a Crowd was named as one of those shows. It basically proved that Jack Tripper as a character, really needed the rest of the cast of Three's Company to work.

[TVFactFan]

Because it didnt live up to the Three's Company standard when it came to ratings. To prove that look at this below. TAC finished the 1st season ranked #38 and there were two ABC shows that finished lower and got renewed

20/20.......#42.............renewed
Moonlighting...#52...............renewed

[Duster76]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

Because it didnt live up to the Three's Company standard when it came to ratings. To prove that look at this below. TAC finished the 1st season ranked #38 and there were two ABC shows that finished lower and got renewed

20/20.......#42.............renewed
Moonlighting...#52...............renewed

With respect to the renewal of 20/20 and Moonlighting, those numbers don't tell the entire story.

Moonlighting was a late season replacement series that performed much better than the three shows that had previously been in the Tuesday 10-11pm timeslot. That's significant. Further the series was growing its audience at impressive levels, so the week to week numbers were improving. That's very significant. That's much more important than the year end ranking, the show was becoming more and more popular.

20/20 was up against very stiff competition, Knots Landing was number 9, and Hill Street Blues was number 30. In addition to that the show was an hour long, cheaper to produce and I would imagine had interesting demos that made it attractive to certain advertisers.

Three's a Crowd didn't have growth potential, according to Ritter ABC was willing to renew for half a season but wanted a major retooling of the series premise (I imagine the network was looking to use the series as a replacement series once the new season got going). John was only willing to continue with a full year commitment which the network was unwilling to give.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by Duster76

With respect to the renewal of 20/20 and Moonlighting, those numbers don't tell the entire story.

Moonlighting was a late season replacement series that performed much better than the three shows that had previously been in the Tuesday 10-11pm timeslot. That's significant. Further the series was growing its audience at impressive levels, so the week to week numbers were improving. That's very significant. That's much more important than the year end ranking, the show was becoming more and more popular.

20/20 was up against very stiff competition, Knots Landing was number 9, and Hill Street Blues was number 30. In addition to that the show was an hour long, cheaper to produce and I would imagine had interesting demos that made it attractive to certain advertisers.

Three's a Crowd didn't have growth potential, according to Ritter ABC was willing to renew for half a season but wanted a major retooling of the series premise (I imagine the network was looking to use the series as a replacement series once the new season got going). John was only willing to continue with a full year commitment which the network was unwilling to give.

I dont understand the midseason thing, ABC was just better just flat out cancelling the show. The ratings would have been worst if John had agreed to that

[TMC]

This YouTube comment I think, perfectly summarizes why Three's a Crowd flopped:

Three's Company was a product of the times and had simply run its course. The subject matter was still considered taboo at the time the show was being adapted in the mid 70's. Originally the writers did push the envelope with their jokes. As the times changed, the characters got older, and the jokes became less raunchy, it was no longer the same show. The network tried reformatting to the times and they failed because 70's jokes declined in the early 80's.

Three's a Crowd was a failure for the all of the same reasons, plus a few more. The network still had faith in John's abilities, but apparently not enough to give him an all new show. I'm sure Three's Company in its peak years was already syndicated in hundreds of markets by 1984, so why would viewers have tuned in to see a weak attempt at a continuation in primetime. The A-Team, Family Ties, and Dallas were still really popular, and The Cosby Show and Miami Vice were two new hits that fall, so Three's a Crowd just couldn't compete. Plus, again, it wasn't a new character and a new concept for John, and they paired him with actors he had no chemistry with, and plugged him into a bunch of goofy, poorly written situations that didn't do much to highlight his abilities.