Why would Mr. Furley have a moral objection to Jack living with 2 women

[TMC]

I mean, Ralph Furley was a bachelor who dressed flamboyantly and fashioned himself a ladies man, so you would think that he would have a decidedly more liberal perspective on things when compared to Mr. Roper. I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that why would Jack by the time that Mr. Furley became his landlord, still need to pretend to be gay to justify living with his female roommates?

[TMC]

I went back and checked, and I remembered that Mr. Furley always maintained that it was his brother (the actual owner of the building) that cared about cohabitation of different genders.

[TMC]

Come to think of it, I really thought that it was inappropriate for Mr. Furley to quite flippantly tell Terri upon first meeting her that Jack is gay. I don't know how to properly explain it other than it just made Mr. Furley look like a senseless jerk. I mean, why does Furley feel the need to disclose sensitive personal information about one of his tenants like that?

I kind of get that Terri in this case, was kind of an audience surrogate character. What I mean by that is that if you haven't seen Three's Company up until that point, we still have to be informed that the central premise is that Jack has to pretend to be gay for the landlord in order to be allowed to live with two women. But even by 1981-82, that particular story arc was getting tired and dated, at least in my estimation.

[TheLittleFaerie]

Originally Posted by TMC

I mean, Ralph Furley was a bachelor who dressed flamboyantly and fashioned himself a ladies man, so you would think that he would have a decidedly more liberal perspective on things when compared to Mr. Roper. I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that why would Jack by the time that Mr. Furley became his landlord, still need to pretend to be gay to justify living with his female roommates?

Yeah I think Bart was the one who had an issue with it... I don't think Mr Furley would have cared... IN FACT there were times Jack would flirt with the girls in front of Furley, once Furley was like, "Don't you ever stop!?" When he thought Jack was making out with Janet.... I honestly think Furley knew Jack wasn't gay

[BestTVever]

The gay thing got old in the Mr Furley years. The episode where Mr Furley turns Jack straight and then tells him to move from the apartment is ridiculous.
Even as a kid watching in real time, I could not understand conservative Mr Roper and Furley would be so upset a guy is living with a girl that is not married. Their mind objecting to sexual activity between them under their roof. Yet they would have no problem with gay sex? Even in the liberal 70s, it was much more objectionable for landlords to deny renting to openly gay or perceived gay people than straight unmarried couples.

[TheLittleFaerie]

Originally Posted by BestTVever

The gay thing got old in the Mr Furley years. The episode where Mr Furley turns Jack straight and then tells him to move from the apartment is ridiculous.
Even as a kid watching in real time, I could not understand conservative Mr Roper and Furley would be so upset a guy is living with a girl that is not married. Their mind objecting to sexual activity between them under their roof. Yet they would have no problem with gay sex? Even in the liberal 70s, it was much more objectionable for landlords to deny renting to openly gay or perceived gay people than straight unmarried couples.

In the episode where Furley thought he had "turned Jack straight", I think Furley went on to explain Bart would never allow Jack to live there with 2 girls if he was now straight... So again, I think Bart was the issue, I don't think Furley would have minded.

Also the idea of Roper not having an issue with gay sex happening under their roof is not so unbelievable, a lot of old people from the Greatest Generation era felt that way... My grandfather would NEVER allow an unmarried man and woman to sleep in the same bed "under his roof" BUT he said he would have no problem with 2 gay men sleeping in the same bed and even having all the sex they wanted, because he didn't see gay sex and REAL SEX lol He maintained that homosexuality wasn't REAL so there's no way 2 men nor 2 women can even have sex.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by TheLittleFaerie

In the episode where Furley thought he had "turned Jack straight", I think Furley went on to explain Bart would never allow Jack to live there with 2 girls if he was now straight... So again, I think Bart was the issue, I don't think Furley would have minded.

Also the idea of Roper not having an issue with gay sex happening under their roof is not so unbelievable, a lot of old people from the Greatest Generation era felt that way... My grandfather would NEVER allow an unmarried man and woman to sleep in the same bed "under his roof" BUT he said he would have no problem with 2 gay men sleeping in the same bed and even having all the sex they wanted, because he didn't see gay sex and REAL SEX lol He maintained that homosexuality wasn't REAL so there's no way 2 men nor 2 women can even have sex.

One reason why I think that the Three's a Crowd spin-off didn't work is that it came along too late. By the time that it went on the air (September 1984), was it really that taboo, edgy, or out of the ordinary for a man like Jack Tripper to be cohabiting with a woman who he wasn't exactly married to? I mean, Jack had already spent the past eight years living with Janet. The only difference on Three's a Crowd is that Jack no longer had to pretend to be gay for the landlord and he was living with only one woman instead of two. So it wasn't like Three's a Crowd but anything completely new or different to the table.

[BestTVever]

One reason I preferred the Roper years is because Roper always had his suspicions that Jack was not gay in the beginning. Those suspicions made for some great comedy. For example the episode where Jack hides in the kitchen cooking for Chrissy's date Mr Roper goes upstairs to confront Jack after a girl turns in his sweater downstairs. When Roper gets upstairs Chrissy is in tears and says "you wont believe what Jack did. He stole my date." Mr Roper says "Let me get to the bottom of this" and goes into the kitchen to investigate. Furley just made crude gay jokes that were stale and old. I think the series worked better when Roper was really suspicious if Jack was truly gay. I also loved that Helen was in on the joke and covered for the kids. It made for such a better dynamic compared to the Furley years.

[rusty spike]

I think it had to do with running a respectable apartment complex.

That's what some people used to think back in the days.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by BestTVever

One reason I preferred the Roper years is because Roper always had his suspicions that Jack was not gay in the beginning. Those suspicions made for some great comedy. For example the episode where Jack hides in the kitchen cooking for Chrissy's date Mr Roper goes upstairs to confront Jack after a girl turns in his sweater downstairs. When Roper gets upstairs Chrissy is in tears and says "you wont believe what Jack did. He stole my date." Mr Roper says "Let me get to the bottom of this" and goes into the kitchen to investigate. Furley just made crude gay jokes that were stale and old. I think the series worked better when Roper was really suspicious if Jack was truly gay. I also loved that Helen was in on the joke and covered for the kids. It made for such a better dynamic compared to the Furley years.

The other night, I was watching the "Jack Gets His" episode, you know the one from Season 7 where Jack gets an opportunity to manage his own restaurant. There's a scene where Jack is asking for suggestions for what to call the restaurant. After Jack said that he wanted the name to have a French sounding vibe, Mr. Furley chimes in by saying "What are you going to call it then, Gay Purée!?" before chuckling by himself.

I do get that we're really supposed to be laughing at Mr. Furley instead of laughing with him. I mean, Mr. Furley was a big, uncool, goofy dweeb who didn't seem to get a hint that he was like that. But you do have a point when you say that the whole "Jack has to pretend to be gay" thing was more cleverly done and better a when Mr. Roper was the landlord. I guess, that it didn't seem as "on the nose" with Mr. Roper than it became with Mr. Furley.

Plus, it right away seemed more in-line with a gruff, old school, no-nonsense guy like Stanley Roper to act and feel the way that he felt (he was to me, basically the So Cal equivalent to Archie Bunker) than a flamboyant, presumably more free-thinking man like Ralph Furley. Plus, if you take out the crude jokes that Mr. Furley made at Jack's expense, you get the sense that at the end of the day, he genuinely liked Jack unlike Mr. Furley. So what exactly was the point or what was there to gain from him acting like that toward Jack? Especially since Mr. Furley at the end of the day, didn't actually own the building, his brother did.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by BestTVever

The gay thing got old in the Mr Furley years. The episode where Mr Furley turns Jack straight and then tells him to move from the apartment is ridiculous.
Even as a kid watching in real time, I could not understand conservative Mr Roper and Furley would be so upset a guy is living with a girl that is not married. Their mind objecting to sexual activity between them under their roof. Yet they would have no problem with gay sex? Even in the liberal 70s, it was much more objectionable for landlords to deny renting to openly gay or perceived gay people than straight unmarried couples.

This is also why I don't think that a show like Three's Company would work had it come out any later than during the time that it did. Maybe this sounds naïve, but why at least on the surface level, would a sensible landlord care who his tenants are living with (married or not, gay or straight) and doing in private as long as they can pay the rent?

[TMC]

Originally Posted by BestTVever

One reason I preferred the Roper years is because Roper always had his suspicions that Jack was not gay in the beginning. Those suspicions made for some great comedy. For example the episode where Jack hides in the kitchen cooking for Chrissy's date Mr Roper goes upstairs to confront Jack after a girl turns in his sweater downstairs. When Roper gets upstairs Chrissy is in tears and says "you wont believe what Jack did. He stole my date." Mr Roper says "Let me get to the bottom of this" and goes into the kitchen to investigate. Furley just made crude gay jokes that were stale and old. I think the series worked better when Roper was really suspicious if Jack was truly gay. I also loved that Helen was in on the joke and covered for the kids. It made for such a better dynamic compared to the Furley years.

I think that I said before that Mr. Furley kind of became the resident "dumb" character during the latter seasons (i.e. post-Chrissy and during the Terri-era). He unlike Mr. Roper, pretty much saw the whole gay facade that Jack had to put on completely as face value. What I mean by that is that you never really got the vibe that Mr. Furley wondered if he was being "had" by Jack and he wasn't exactly what he claimed that he was. I assume that the joke is that we were ultimately supposed to be laughing at Mr. Furley instead of with him. But as good as Don Knotts was, Mr. Furley was maybe, kind of a one-dimensional cartoon character when compared to Mr. Roper. With Mr. Roper, we could genuinely and legitimately believe that he would kick Jack out of apartment #201 at any giving chance that he had.

[BestTVever]

Originally Posted by TMC

I think that I said before that Mr. Furley kind of became the resident "dumb" character during the latter seasons (i.e. post-Chrissy and during the Terri-era). He unlike Mr. Roper, pretty much saw the whole gay facade that Jack had to put on completely as face value. What I mean by that is that you never really got the vibe that Mr. Furley wondered if he was being "had" by Jack and he wasn't exactly what he claimed that he was. I assume that the joke is that we were ultimately supposed to be laughing at Mr. Furley instead of with him. But as good as Don Knotts was, Mr. Furley was maybe, kind of a one-dimensional cartoon character when compared to Mr. Roper. With Mr. Roper, we could genuinely and legitimately believe that he would kick Jack out of apartment #201 at any giving chance that he had.

Yes Mr Furley was a cartoon character. No way a script like Double Trouble would ever work with Mr Roper. His character was just to laugh at which did work a few times. The Ropers had depth because many times Mr Roper was so annoying but Helen always came through for the kids. Plus their dynamic together had some of the funniest moments of the series.

[CJMD03]

If anyone was gay it would have been Furley!!

[TMC]

Originally Posted by TMC

Come to think of it, I really thought that it was inappropriate for Mr. Furley to quite flippantly tell Terri upon first meeting her that Jack is gay. I don't know how to properly explain it other than it just made Mr. Furley look like a senseless jerk. I mean, why does Furley feel the need to disclose sensitive personal information about one of his tenants like that?

I kind of get that Terri in this case, was kind of an audience surrogate character. What I mean by that is that if you haven't seen Three's Company up until that point, we still have to be informed that the central premise is that Jack has to pretend to be gay for the landlord in order to be allowed to live with two women. But even by 1981-82, that particular story arc was getting tired and dated, at least in my estimation.

Also, in a specific case like this, Mr. Furley really needed to mind his own business. I really have to fight an urge to want to smack Mr. Furley behind his head when he smugly says to Terri "Did Jack ever tell you that he's gay!?" Did Mr. Furley hay that just to make sure that Terri doesn't attempt to try anything "funny" (i.e. try and be romantic with him and what not) with Jack while she's living with him? I suppose that I'm funny about a presumed "friend", colleague, or acquaintance of mine, just randomly and casually disclosing deeply personal, sensitive, or private information about myself to a stranger or somebody that they just met without my consent or prior knowledge.