Three's a Crowd

Three's a Crowd is boring, direction-less, and painfully unfunny. The producers made no attempt to create a new and exciting vehicle for John Ritter's brilliant physical comedy, they were simply coasting on the laurels of Three's Company's success.

Three's a Crowd obviously couldn't have featured any of the dynamics that made Three's Company so hilarious like the sexual tensions and misunderstandings that come as a result of a man living with two women; not to mention Jack's charade of pretending that he was gay around Mr. Roper, and later Mr. Furley, so he could go on living in the apartment. So what did they do to make up for those missing attributes on this spin-off?

Nothing. The Jack Tripper of this show is barely the same character from Three's Company. The overzealous, yet lovable klutz is rarely seen here. Instead, Jack is a boring husband and business owner nearing middle-age. His wife, Vicki, played by Mary Cadorette, is equally as uncharismatic. We get to see glimpses of the old Jack in the episodes, "Jack Gets Trashed" and "A Star Is Born" but these sightings are too few and far between. In fact, Jack is even used as a straight man to wackier characters like his chef, E.Z. Taylor.

E.Z., a Spicoli-like surf bum is more annoying than funny. Why didn't they use Felipe Gomez, the reoccurring character from seasons 5 to 7 of Three's Company, for the chef? Not only was that character hilarious but he shared an awesome chemistry with Jack. I guess that pairing would have worked too well.

Jack's antagonistic relationship with his father-in-law, Mr. Bradford, played by Robert Mandan of Soap, would have been more entertaining if we hadn't seen it done before. They share the exact same discord that Jack had with Mr. Angelino, only not near as amusing.

Jack's mother-in-law, Claudia, played by Jessica Walter, is on this show for the sole purpose of exchanging clichéd ex-spouse jokes with Mr. Bradford. Henny Youngman should have sued the show just on the basis of these two characters stealing his material.

It's no shock that this show only lasted a single season. The only great thing about Three's a Crowd is that it gives us much more of an appreciation for Three's Company.

While I was lucky to get hold of all 22 episodes of Three's a Crowd on DVD, I'm not surprised it lasted just one season. They were running out of ideas and some of the jokes were getting a bit stale. Another well known fact was that Three's a Crowd was a spin off to Three's Company, yet while watching the former, its almost as there never was a latter. How many times in TC we heard Janet, Jack, Chrissy, Cindy, Terri etc say how they were the best friends they ever had, but in TAC, its as if Janet, Chrissy, Cindy and Terri never existed. I mean if you have best friends, then it is expected that you will keep in touch with them and meet up with them from time to time. With the exception of the appearance of Larry in one episode of TAC, there is not a word mentioned of Janet, Chrissy, Cindy, Terri, the Ropers and Furley. One would expect Jack to occasionally talk about living with Janet, Chrissy, Terri, Cindy, Lana or the Ropers and Furley and tell Vicky about some of the outrageous situations they found themselves in. After all he spent so many years with them. Its as if he's forgotten all about them. To add a touch of reality or authenticity to the show, they could have shown Janet and her husband come by to Jack's Bistro for a meal in a few episodes (married couples do eat out, especially if their best friend owns a restaurant!) or for Jack to receive an occasional phone call from Terri or Cindy or have Furley (or even the Ropers) drop by the Bistro to see how Jack was doing in his new life or as I mentioned before, tell Vicky about those amusing situations he and the girls got themselves into when they shared that apartment. That is what I missed the most. I actually missed the past characters and I think that was one of the essential ingredients missing from TAC. It might have fared better if they would have occasionally pulled in some of the old cast members as guest stars, but its all water under the bridge now and long gone. Either way, we shall never see comedy like that again and I'm glad we now have them all immortalized on DVD.

After fantastic 8 seasons of "Three's company" I was left disappointed with how the things wrapped up for the gang - the creators basically crumpled Terri & Janet's character's exits from the show instead focusing the last episodes on Jack and his new relationship with Vicky almost completely. Suffice it to say that Three's a crowd felt out of place and none of the cast members (except Richard Klein's Larry) ever appeared on the show or were even mentioned by name once: after so much time together the creators could have at least acknowledged their own characters with a line or two. Besides this fact the series was flat, tired and uninspiring and there are only 3-4 episodes out of the whole season of 22 that really stand out - all the rest is filler leading the characters nowhere; multiple episodes ended without proper resolution of the story arcs - so what was the point of this whole show? Beats me. Though there was a nice addition to the cast in the face of E.Z. character played marvellously by Alan Campbell and John Ritter and Mary Cadorette were a great on-screen couple, they sadly got their chemistry wasted on this mess of a TV spin-off of a far superior original.

When I first watched Threes a Crowd I didn't really like it. It felt odd. I am a Threes Company fanatic and I think I didn't want change. Now that I watch it on PlutoTV while I work from home I really appreciate it. EZ grew on me and Vicki's father cracks me up. Great cast all around. I think one more season would have been neat but hey it's more Jack Tripper. That works for me.

I was a big fan of Joyce DeWitt on Three's Company, but a Jack and Janet spin off just wouldn't have worked for several reasons. First of all, over the course of the series the relationship between Jack and the female roommates moved strongly in the direction of a brother-sister relationship instead of the romantic one. To see these pseudo-siblings married might have seemed as out of place as a Brady Bunch spin off called "Greg Loves Marcia".

The second reason it would have failed is that "Three's Company" broke some social TV taboos in its day, so the successor should break some in its own day. Back in the 80s, the controversial trend was to dismiss the concept of marriage with the idea that you didn't need a contract from the government in order to be in a committed loving relationship (yet oddly enough the controversial trend in our current decade is the opposite belief) so having Jack shack up with a woman was the next logical step. Jack living with Janet, however, would not have made sense because both characters had previously expressed value in the concept of marriage and we've already seen them living together for the past 7 years. What would we gain, especially when her parents already like Jack! A third reason it wouldn't have worked is that the entire franchise was based upon the British "Man About the House" franchise. I understand the value in copying the core concept, but I don't know why the producers continued mirroring that franchise. (Legal reasons perhaps?) At any rate, "Three's A Crowd" was designed after "Robin's Nest" and trying to force Janet and her family into those roles would have been awkward. The bitter relationship between the parents of Jack's girlfriend was key to the reason behind their living together and it was also the source of a lot of comedy with the un-Father-in-Law. (It's odd. Vicki wanted this arrangement so that they were living together because they wanted to live together instead of being forced to live together. Apparently splitting up a relationship where two people share the same living environment, property, bills, and possibly kids is only difficult if that couple is married) We already met Janet's parents and they seemed fairly contented with each other... and fairly boring too.

I also think the producers wanted to get lots of fresh blood into the mix. If the female lead was Janet the name of the series might as well have been called "Three's Company Lite". (Though the series "Angel" did show that you can create a new series with a cast comprised completely from a subset of the cast of another show yet still have it feel like its own show) But all my arguments are a moot point considering that the series did fail.