The Three's Company Finale Still Bothers Fans To This Day

[TMC]

Originally Posted by DEH55

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, the big problem 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 of Three's Company, it would be the centerpiece, but it's barely relevant and hardly even on screen. Both Janet and Terri are treated like background players in the grander scheme of things.

[BestTVever]

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

[TMC]

Originally Posted by ClarenceAlabama

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 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 performance as Vicky Bradford.

[ClarenceAlabama]

Originally Posted by TMC

I wonder if the basic issue with an actress like Mary Cadorette 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 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.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by ClarenceAlabama

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 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 pretty much its the nail on the head for why it was easy to dislike Vicky:

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 for a moment, Three's a Crowd is based on Robin's Nest from the UK and Robin Tripp (the British equivalent to Jack Tripper) does not enter a romantic relationship with Chrissy Plummer (the British equivalent to Janet Wood on its parent show, 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.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by Duster76

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 seemed to rarely give the inclination on Three's Company/Three's a Crowd that she was truly "in" on the joke. In other words, she seemingly doesn't know exactly, what type of show that she signed up for.

I then remembered something that I had previously written in the Glee forum:

Glee was supposed to be satirical and dark. But then bland, humorless, and boring characters like Marley and Rory were added. Their additions may have been fine had there been an ounce of irony in their performances and not played completely straight.

[BestTVever]

Originally Posted by ClarenceAlabama

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.

[ClarenceAlabama]

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.

[Fallon97]

Originally Posted by Mace Dolex

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.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by CJMD03

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 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.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by ClarenceAlabama

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. 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.

[TMC]

Here's another discussion or two concerning how much the series finale for Three's Company was a major let down.

[Dude111]

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

[TVFactFan]

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

[TMC]

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 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?