Some Things I Noticed About Suzanne Somers

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by Mace Dolex

Yeah and plus CS was on NBC which I believe didn't have anything to lose since they were starting up their Thursday night comedy block, ABC was probably desperate for a hit and TAC fell victim of getting the axe.

Not sure why ABC had high expectations for TAC since the last season of TC was not that good in the ratings

[JSP]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

Not sure why ABC had high expectations for TAC since the last season of TC was not that good in the ratings

Yeah.

But keep in mind ABC was willing to renew it for another 13 episodes, but John didn't want to go on unless they renewed it for another full season.

Maybe after it was all said and done the only reason it ended was that John didn't want to go on anymore. 9 seasons of pratfalls is a lot. If John just wanted it to end I don't blame him.

[LittleRickyII]

Originally Posted by JackJanetChrissy

That just proves my point. If it was season 9 of Three's Company, and if John Ritter was the big star of Three's Company, then why did it fail?

Because the other members of the ENSEMBLE were not there. Period.

I agree with you. I don't enjoy the episodes after Suzanne left and usually tune it out. The show worked best when they were all three together. Jennilee Harrison could not do comedy, Priscilla Barnes was just adequate. The years without Suzanne, the magic was gone. And Three's a Crowd was just a snoozer.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by JSP

Yeah.

But keep in mind ABC was willing to renew it for another 13 episodes, but John didn't want to go on unless they renewed it for another full season.

Maybe after it was all said and done the only reason it ended was that John didn't want to go on anymore. 9 seasons of pratfalls is a lot. If John just wanted it to end I don't blame him.

I don't blame him, that means the show would not have started until the spring which was pointless since it would not have been no guarantee it would be picked up.

[JackJanetChrissy]

Originally Posted by JSP

Maybe after it was all said and done the only reason it ended was that John didn't want to go on anymore. 9 seasons of pratfalls is a lot. If John just wanted it to end I don't blame him.

You make a good point. I think it was a combination of the show (and Jack Tripper) running its course, the absence of a true ensemble cast, and the fact that TAC was not farce, which was what made Three's Company great.

I think John Ritter should have been alive during the silent movie era. He was too good for this modern world that seems to pooh-pooh physical comedy. He was a genius, and the farce format was perfect for him.

[JSP]

Originally Posted by JackJanetChrissy

You make a good point. I think it was a combination of the show (and Jack Tripper) running its course, the absence of a true ensemble cast, and the fact that TAC was not farce, which was what made Three's Company great.

I think John Ritter should have been alive during the silent movie era. He was too good for this modern world that seems to pooh-pooh physical comedy. He was a genius, and the farce format was perfect for him.

10 seasons of Jack Tripper would have been too many anyway.

It's good to be on a hit show, but I'm sure come 1985 John Ritter and a lot of other people were thinking, move on already!

It really is remarkable that Ritter didn't get typecast as Tripper. He got to do a lot of serious roles post-Three's.

[LittleRickyII]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

I don't blame him, that means the show would not have started until the spring which was pointless since it would not have been no guarantee it would be picked up.

No, it would have started in the fall with a guarantee of half a season. A fall commitment of 13 episodes was routine back then, and even today. I don't buy that as an excuse, though. I think it was just ABC giving John a story to tell so he could have a graceful exit from the show without the embarrassment of his show being canceled. Networks back in those days were frequently allowing a story for the press to protect their stars from the embarrassment of being cancelled. On its face, the story makes no sense. They were supposedly offering 13 additional weeks to get the ratings up, and the summer in between so they could work on fixing the show before returning in the fall so it could have another chance. And he says no??? "No, I don't want that opportunity. I'd prefer you end the show now, ABC, rather than giving us yet another chance to make it work." That just seems implausible to me. The show had already been given a full year. Three's Company had fallen in the ratings. ABC gave the show a lifeline (Three's a Crowd), with another full year to get the ratings up, but it didn't work, so the show was cancelled.

In this article, which says the ratings for Three's a Crowd had dropped since Three's Company, it sounds like ABC clearly pulled the plug and John had to accept their decision. https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...,6719177&hl=en

Here's another article where Robert Mandan was asking viewers to send letters to ABC, hoping to change their minds about cancelling the show: https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...,5095826&hl=en

And another about the show's cancelation: https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...,1146921&hl=en

[TerriFan]

TC tanked in season 8 because 1) the writing went downhill and story ideas started being repeated, 2) the cast wasn't into it any more, as can be seen from the ATM episode on, and 3) it was killed by The A-Team. When TAC started, ABC handled 2), but not 1) or 3), resulting in ratings disaster.

[Mr. Television]

Originally Posted by LittleRickyII

No, it would have started in the fall with a guarantee of half a season. A fall commitment of 13 episodes was routine back then, and even today. I don't buy that as an excuse, though. I think it was just ABC giving John a story to tell so he could have a graceful exit from the show without the embarrassment of his show being canceled. Networks back in those days were frequently allowing a story for the press to protect their stars from the embarrassment of being cancelled. On its face, the story makes no sense. They were supposedly offering 13 additional weeks to get the ratings up, and the summer in between so they could work on fixing the show before returning in the fall so it could have another chance. And he says no??? "No, I don't want that opportunity. I'd prefer you end the show now, ABC, rather than giving us yet another chance to make it work." That just seems implausible to me. The show had already been given a full year. Three's Company had fallen in the ratings. ABC gave the show a lifeline (Three's a Crowd), with another full year to get the ratings up, but it didn't work, so the show was cancelled.

In this article, which says the ratings for Three's a Crowd had dropped since Three's Company, it sounds like ABC clearly pulled the plug and John had to accept their decision. https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...,6719177&hl=en

Here's another article where Robert Mandan was asking viewers to send letters to ABC, hoping to change their minds about cancelling the show: https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...,5095826&hl=en

And another about the show's cancelation: https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...,1146921&hl=en

Back in the 80's I don't even remember hearing anything about ABC offering a 13 episode commitment. The newspaper headlines clearly stated the show was cancelled. I remember reading what they were going to plan for the coming season included Jack getting married. And I think it was in a TV Guide article where Robert Mandan blasted ABC for cancelling the show.

[JSP]

Originally Posted by LittleRickyII

No, it would have started in the fall with a guarantee of half a season. A fall commitment of 13 episodes was routine back then, and even today. I don't buy that as an excuse, though. I think it was just ABC giving John a story to tell so he could have a graceful exit from the show without the embarrassment of his show being canceled. Networks back in those days were frequently allowing a story for the press to protect their stars from the embarrassment of being cancelled. On its face, the story makes no sense. They were supposedly offering 13 additional weeks to get the ratings up, and the summer in between so they could work on fixing the show before returning in the fall so it could have another chance. And he says no??? "No, I don't want that opportunity. I'd prefer you end the show now, ABC, rather than giving us yet another chance to make it work." That just seems implausible to me. The show had already been given a full year. Three's Company had fallen in the ratings. ABC gave the show a lifeline (Three's a Crowd), with another full year to get the ratings up, but it didn't work, so the show was cancelled.

In this article, which says the ratings for Three's a Crowd had dropped since Three's Company, it sounds like ABC clearly pulled the plug and John had to accept their decision. https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...,6719177&hl=en

Here's another article where Robert Mandan was asking viewers to send letters to ABC, hoping to change their minds about cancelling the show: https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...,5095826&hl=en

And another about the show's cancelation: https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...,1146921&hl=en

You're probably right. I should say that I just got it from the Wikipedia article that ABC was going to offer a 13 week episode season to John but he turned it down.

Since anybody can edit Wikipedia, that could just be one big untruth. Or like you said, maybe it was just something they could say after the fact to save face.

The reality is probably ABC didn't want to renew it. If they weren't going to give Three's Company another season even though they finished 1983-84 ranked 31st, I guess it's all but certain they weren't going to renew "Three's A Crowd' after it placed 38th for 1984-85.


It's kind of sad though when you think about it. Why didn't they just move Three's Company for Season 9 to a different night rather than telling the producers they were going to flat out cancel it after Season 8. I mean lots of shows that placed below 31st get renewed.

I wonder why ABC dudn't consider the possibility of moving Three's Company away from the Tuesdays at 9PM/8 Central slot. Granted, the show was probably getting dull, but that didn't stop networks from renewing shows before.

I guess there must have been somebody at ABC that didn't really like the show, and was only willing to stick with it as long as it was in the top ten, but at the first sign of trouble they were going to end it.

[Dianne3]

Another reason for TAC's failure is how TC ended.
It was for me anyway. I refused to give it a chance.

I didn't spend years invested in TC's to see the finale mostly be about Jack & Vicky. We viewers wanted to see closure for ALL the characters. Of course, it was understandable that Chrissy couldn't be a part of it.

As for Season 8 ratings, the decline in TC actually started halfway through season 7. It was after Jack opened his restaurant early in Season 7, that the plots started to repeat themselves.

There was also no character growth. Jack still doesn't have a car and Janet still can't cook.

[Mr. Television]

Originally Posted by Dianne3

Another reason for TAC's failure is how TC ended.
It was for me anyway. I refused to give it a chance.

I didn't spend years invested in TC's to see the finale mostly be about Jack & Vicky. We viewers wanted to see closure for ALL the characters. Of course, it was understandable that Chrissy couldn't be a part of it.

As for Season 8 ratings, the decline in TC actually started halfway through season 7. It was after Jack opened his restaurant early in Season 7, that the plots started to repeat themselves.

There was also no character growth. Jack still doesn't have a car and Janet still can't cook.

They made us wait until the fall to see the final episode. I'm still mad about that. ABC was just playing us. They wanted to use the final episode to promote TAC.

[JackJanetChrissy]

Yeah, I agree with you about the ending of Three's Company. I watched it recently and was amazed all over again at how Janet was reduced to worrying that Jack made nice with a girl he'd been seeing for a couple weeks not only on her WEDDING DAY but also DURING her actual ceremony!! At that point in the show I was used to sort of suspending disbelief, but that was too far a stretch. It was insulting to flatten the characters of Janet and Terri to nothing more than cheerleaders for Jack's love life in the final episodes. That went against everything in the series we had seen up until that point. I don't blame people for being bitter.

[TVFactFan]

I would love to meet a girl like Vicky

Willing to move in and share the expenses and not interested in marriage??

LOL Jack was too stupid to realize how good he had it

[Mr. Television]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

I would love to meet a girl like Vicky

Willing to move in and share the expenses and not interested in marriage??

LOL Jack was too stupid to realize how good he had it

Larry would have no regrets. lol