Whatever Happened to Mary Cadorette - Vicky from TV's "Three's a Crowd"

[Duster76]

Originally Posted by dee2364

Disagree. It was how the character of Vicky was written. Cadorette was great as Harry Stone's GF on Night Court. (I actually think the writers missed an opportunity by dropping her character.) She was lame on TAC because the writers wanted Vicky to be this bland, virginal, wishy-washy character who was still emotionally like a little girl who went wahhing to her mommy and daddy every time she had a fight with Jack. Her character just sucked, especially compared to all the more mature women Jack used to date. It would've been more fun seeing him date the type of Yuppie character that Cadorette wound up playing on Night Court or maybe an airhead like Greedy Gretchen.

She's not a lead actress, she had virtually no experience (take a look at her credits up to the point she was cast in the role of Vicky), she was in over her head. I don't blame her, I blame Ritter and the production team. They treated the series as a lower budget 9th season of Three's Company. They eliminated the higher salaried roommates and the higher salaried landlord replacing them with lower cost alternatives leaving the rest of the show pretty much alone. The relationship between Jack and Vicky had to capture the audience, and it didn't with a predictable end result.

Cadorette who was only 28 when the series concluded was never cast in another series as a regular or even in a recurring part. She did work, got some parts, and as you mentioned appeared in 4 episodes of Night Court during season 8. If the Harry /Margaret relationship had gotten positive feedback from the audience don't you think the producers might have found a way to bring her back during season 9. The show's ratings were fading at that point, anything that grabbed the audience attention would have interested both the network and the producers. Keep in mind that outside of a brief comeback (1997-99, 5 credits) she was basically done after 1991, when she appeared in Night Court (she was only 34 at the time).

[dee2364]

Originally Posted by Duster76

If the Harry /Margaret relationship had gotten positive feedback from the audience don't you think the producers might have found a way to bring her back during season 9.

The relationship didn't last because the show shipped Harry and Christine the entire time, which is why the writers made Christine divorce, not because of anything that Mary Cadorette did.

I don't understand this angle of blaming MC for Three's a Crowd. I've tried watching the series three times and each time, it's obvious to me what went wrong with the show. Three's Company was a very over the top, wacky and raunchy show and nobody wanted to see it rebooted as a really lame whitewashed, middle of the road 1980s show playing it safe. The side characters like EZ were terrible, and Robert Mandan's character was just a lame version of Ted Knight from Too Close for Comfort. The show wouldn't have worked no matter who had been cast because in the end, it wasn't anything like Three's Company.

[Duster76]

Originally Posted by dee2364

The relationship didn't last because the show shipped Harry and Christine the entire time, which is why the writers made Christine divorce, not because of anything that Mary Cadorette did.

I don't understand this angle of blaming MC for Three's a Crowd. I've tried watching the series three times and each time, it's obvious to me what went wrong with the show. Three's Company was a very over the top, wacky and raunchy show and nobody wanted to see it rebooted as a really lame whitewashed, middle of the road 1980s show playing it safe. The side characters like EZ were terrible, and Robert Mandan's character was just a lame version of Ted Knight from Too Close for Comfort. The show wouldn't have worked no matter who had been cast because in the end, it wasn't anything like Three's Company.

I'm not blaming Cadorette, she auditioned for a role and she got it. This is what I said:

"I don't blame her, I blame Ritter and the production team".

This is the female lead we're talking about in what was to be a romantic comedy. That relationship had to sizzle, the show had to break some new ground. The new relationship is the gateway to the series, if that doesn't interest the audience then nothing else mattered.

[Schmo]

I remember neither the root beer commercial Mary appeared in nor the root beer on the shelves.
I’m glad Mary found a good life after Hollywood. Not all actors or actresses do.
As for the failure of “Three’s A Crowd”, I think audiences were tired of the Jack Tripper character, and John Ritter should have realized that before committing to the series.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by Duster76

I'm not blaming Cadorette, she auditioned for a role and she got it. This is what I said:

"I don't blame her, I blame Ritter and the production team".

This is the female lead we're talking about in what was to be a romantic comedy. That relationship had to sizzle, the show had to break some new ground. The new relationship is the gateway to the series, if that doesn't interest the audience then nothing else mattered.

As others have said, the Vicky Bradford character was not only boring as a female lead, she was just unlikable when you get right down to it. She smooshed Jack’s spirit and tried to change him.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by dee2364

She didn't just have one episode, surprisingly. She was part of a story arc as "the one who got away." This is why I think she was a much better actress than she appeared on TAC. think. I know that Night Court was a goofy show, but casting was usually solid, and they wouldn't have had her as a major love interest if she was that bad.

Mary Cadorette unintentionally made her career out of playing the love interests of cast members from the 1990 It miniseries, John Ritter and Harry Anderson.

[thejasoomian]

Originally Posted by TMC

As others have said, the Vicky Bradford character was not only boring as a female lead, she was just unlikable when you get right down to it. She smooshed Jack’s spirit and tried to change him.

^^ I don't agree with any of this statement.

[biffbronson]

I'm with thejasoomian.

The sole Reddit commenter who called Vicky "unlikeable" was a woman. No "others" said that, and aside from TMC, I haven't heard a man call her that. A couple of comments that Cadorette lacked charisma or that Vicky was "boring" are not the same.

TMC is referencing a scant few negative commenters in an effort to bend the narrative into a harsher assessment than it was. Very likely "brandiLeeCO" was a Ritter fan who wouldn't "like" any woman paired with him.

[thejasoomian]

Originally Posted by biffbronson

I'm with thejasoomian.

The sole Reddit commenter who called Vicky "unlikeable" was a woman. No "others" said that, and aside from TMC, I haven't heard a man call her that. A couple of comments that Cadorette lacked charisma or that Vicky was "boring" are not the same.

TMC is referencing a scant few negative commenters in an effort to bend the narrative into a harsher assessment than it was. Very likely "brandiLeeCO" was a Ritter fan who wouldn't "like" any woman paired with him.

^^ Agreed.

I would also say that Jack's character change has been a gradual thing that started on the season he got his restaurant. He had to be responsible now as demostrated in several episodes.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by thejasoomian

^^ Agreed.

I would also say that Jack's character change has been a gradual thing that started on the season he got his restaurant. He had to be responsible now as demostrated in several episodes.

And by going all out in wanting to make Jack "responsible" they in effect, likely made him less funny. By making him less funny, they all but made the show less watchable. So, if you ask me, it really didn't matter in the long run whether making Jack Tripper more "responsible" than he may have been on Three's Company, since the show was ultimately cancelled after only one season and about 22 episodes anyway.

By trying to make a structural point about Jack's evolution and how the show changed Jack to fit the new setup, you're also in essence, wanting to shift the discussion away from being about whether or not did people liked Vicky. You can't say with a straight face "Only one woman said she was unlikeable, so men must have loved her" when we need to at the end of the day, take into account the General Audience. Even if only a small number of commenters explicitly called Vicky unlikeable, the broader issue is that Three’s a Crowd failed to retain the audience of Three’s Company. That suggests something about the new dynamic—whether Jack’s characterization, Vicky as a partner, or the overall premise—didn’t connect as strongly.

So, why should it matter if the critics were men, women, or Reddit users when the Nielsen Ratings showed that millions of people who watched Three's Company chose not to keep watching Three's a Crowd?

[thejasoomian]

I'm not going to repeat what I have said elsewhere. He wasn't made any less funnier. Many episodes from season six onwards would be in people's top ten . In fact, I think he was funnier. We've already been over Vicky's popularity and the show's popularity. Yahoo users gave TAC 80% and other people voted sites like ratingraph.com gave TAC a 7.1/10 while TC's last season at ratingraph was ranked at 7.6.. TC's last season finished at #33 while TAC finished at #38. Hardly millions lost considering TC's last season was at a 16.9 share. I really don't care what other people think of Vicky and/or Mary Cadorette. It's what I think that counts to me. TAC has been described as having moderate ratings not terrible ratings like you vipers want to project. It was 50/50 on getting renewed according to John. It was in the top ten rerun ratings. It has been said that the network was willing to give it 12 episodes for a season 2 test run. That is hardly the disaster show you make it out to be. And BTW most spinoff's don't do better than the parent show. So your constant reminder of that is moot.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by thejasoomian

I'm not going to repeat what I have said elsewhere. He wasn't made any less funnier. Many episodes from season six onwards would be in people's top ten . In fact, I think he was funnier. We've already been over Vicky's popularity and the show's popularity. Yahoo users gave TAC 80% and other people voted sites like ratingraph.com gave TAC a 7.1/10 while TC's last season at ratingraph was ranked at 7.6.. TC's last season finished at #33 while TAC finished at #38. Hardly millions lost considering TC's last season was at a 16.9 share. I really don't care what other people think of Vicky and/or Mary Cadorette. It's what I think that counts to me. TAC has been described as having moderate ratings not terrible ratings like you vipers want to project. It was 50/50 on getting renewed according to John. It was in the top ten rerun ratings. It has been said that the network was willing to give it 12 episodes for a season 2 test run. That is hardly the disaster show you make it out to be. And BTW most spinoff's don't do better than the parent show. So your constant reminder of that is moot.

Even if it wasn't that big of a ratings dip when compared to the eighth and final season of Three's Company, the fact of the matter is that Three's a Crowd ultimately, only lasted for a single season anyway. Networks also cancel shows that don’t meet expectations, not just because they're considered to be out and out disasters.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to see things from the perceptive of a general audience in 1984-85, when Three's a Crowd was originally on the air. Those are people who count are the ones who turned the channel in 1984, not the handful of people who went to a rating site in 2024 to give it a "thumbs up." Citing and cherry-picking from Yahoo users (80%) and Ratingraph (7.1/10) is essentially, also citing fan polls that were taken decades later by people who seek out the show because they already like it. Otherwise, Yahoo scores and Ratingraph are not authoritative industry measures. They don’t represent the full audience.

If ABC truly had full confidence in Three's a Crowd, then it wouldn't have received only a "12-episode order" for a second season. That often means (at least back in 1985) that a network is only keeping a show around as a "mid-season replacement" because they don't have anything better yet. Think about it for a moment, if ABC was truly satisfied with the ratings and viewership for Three's a Crowd, then they would've without any question, given it a 22-episode pick up for a second season, rather than being so 50/50.

[thejasoomian]

^^ A big bunch of nothing. We all know what your agenda is when you come to the TAC board.