Three's Company

[Mel O'Drama]

That but also the number of episodes. Although the first season of THREE'S COMPANY is only 6 episodes, the rest were 22 to 28. No season of MATH was more than 7 episodes. Americans would have been very unaccustomed to such short seasons.

Yes, MATH ran less than forty episodes in total. It had actually wrapped up before Three's Company began, so technically there would have been enough material for almost two full-length American seasons, but yes, that would have then been followed by a (probably quite jarring) change in writers.

I always feel a bit guilty to admit it, but British humor seldom lands with me. From Benny Hill and Monty Python onward, I just don't get it. ABFAB is the only British comedy I watched and even then I probably missed 20% of the references and jokes.

For what it's worth, I'd say Monty Python and (to a lesser extent) Benny Hill are somewhat "out there" by British standards, too. I've seen some of both but I never really found Benny Hill terribly funny, and the Python material, experimental as it was, seems to be a Curate's egg.

I'm always intrigued about the (relatively small) number of British sitcoms that seem to make it across the Atlantic. Keeping Up Appearances and Are You Being Served? seem to have been popular Stateside, while most other vehicles from their respective writers don't seem to have been. AbFab has elements - wry, cynical outlook and often unlikeable characters - that I've seen cited as being off-putting to non-Brits. I remember feeling surprised when I realised it was a hit in America.

None of this is problematic for me, but count me as slightly bemused about the reasons behind this block. Just when I think I've worked it out, there's a spanner in the works.

It seems comedy is one area where we are indeed "two nations separated by a common language". It could be interesting to study, but I suppose someone in TV land has already done that and decided that remaking British series is a safer/preferable option than screening the originals.

 

[Crimson]

but count me as slightly bemused about the reasons behind this block. Just when I think I've worked it out, there's a spanner in the works.

There's a saying in America that might not mean much to you: "We have McDonald's at home." I could modify that here and say, "We have Hollywood at home". Without devaluing the quality and quantity of other countries' entertainment industries, Hollywood has been the dominant source of movies and TV for the past century. Many Americans probably don't feel the need to seek out anything else.

In my younger days, I was disinterested in British TV for a reason already covered: the short seasons. Watching a TV show with 7 episodes per season felt like sitting down for dinner and only getting an appetizer. Now, I consider a season of more than 10 episodes to be onerous. So, I should probably poke around some British TV shows. I mean, worse case I'm on the hook for, what?, 30 episodes of a long running Brit show? It's not like when you started MTM and found yourself down a path of 200+ episodes.

Oh, and I've seen some clips of LITTLE BRITAIN that made me laugh till my sides hurt. So I guess there's that.

 

[Chris2]

The early episodes of both Three’s Company and spinoff The Ropers were often directly adapted from scripts from the British originals, Man About the House and George & Mildred, respectively (and credited to Mortimer/Cooke). This type of script adaptation didn’t happen for the other spinoff, Three’s a Crowd, which was based on MATH spinoff Robin’s Nest.

And I don’t believe any of the scripts for All in the Family were directly adapted from the British source material. I can’t speak for Sanford and Son because I have only seen a few episodes.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

Without devaluing the quality and quantity of other countries' entertainment industries, Hollywood has been the dominant source of movies and TV for the past century. Many Americans probably don't feel the need to seek out anything else.

Oh yes, I know that's the case for many. American TV networks also appear to have leaned heavily into this (certainly if the Random Ratings thread is anything to go by), and it's far more commonplace for non-American shows to be remade entirely rather than imported, which gives even less reason to seek out anything else.

In my younger days, I was disinterested in British TV for a reason already covered: the short seasons. Watching a TV show with 7 episodes per season felt like sitting down for dinner and only getting an appetizer.

Yes. There's a huge difference in the number of episodes shot. It's part of the reason I started one thread here in which to discuss/watch/rewatch British sitcoms. Sometimes by the time I've made two or three posts the series has run its course.

I should probably poke around some British TV shows. I mean, worse case I'm on the hook for, what?, 30 episodes of a long running Brit show? It's not like when you started MTM and found yourself down a path of 200+ episodes.

Fawlty Towers is almost certainly the best-known example of this. Most people know it - or at least are aware of it - but it ran for just twelve episodes. John Cleese was recently talking about a revival, which I think would be a huge mistake.

As an aside, Britain can also lay claim to the world's longest-running live-action sitcom in terms of duration. Last Of The Summer Wine began in 1973 and ran until 2010, running for almost 38 years, and a relatively modest 295 episodes. It's frequently overlooked, as many online lists and sources defer to US defaultism.

I've seen some clips of LITTLE BRITAIN that made me laugh till my sides hurt. So I guess there's that.

This type of script adaptation didn’t happen for the other spinoff, Three’s a Crowd, which was based on MATH spinoff Robin’s Nest.

That's interesting. It's many years since I've watched Robin's Nest, but I recall it feeling fairly removed from the original series and so probably more "tweakable". I see this is a rare example of the British version having more episodes than the adaption.

 

[Chris2]

I was poking around the Internet Archive, and they had a copy of “Beane’s of Boston”, the late 70s busted pilot for an American adaptation of “Are You Being Served?” It was produced by Garry Marshall and Paramount.

They used the script for the German Week episode with very little changed, right down to the “Are you free?” lines, which seemed odd for an American show. They kept all the sexual innuendo, unusual for a Marshall-produced show at that time. TBH, it wasn’t half bad, although kind of pointless since it was so close to the original, just with American accents. Even the set was similar. Charlotte Rae was very good as Mrs. Slocombe.

 

[Mel O'Drama]

TBH, it wasn’t half bad, although kind of pointless since it was so close to the original, just with American accents.

I'd heard of this but never got round to watching. I just took a look at it and I can see why it wasn't picked up. Compared withThree's Company, which created a different identity from the British version (even using the same material), Beane's mostly just felt to me like watching the life sucked out of the original (and familiarity with that didn't help my experience).

I suppose casting is vital and this one had the double-whammy of trying to both match very specific archetypes that also had great screen chemistry. I'd say it fell down on at least one of those. I had read that Jeremy Croft felt that Alan Sues was miscast as Mr Humphries, and I wouldn't disagree.

Also, were Mrs Slocombe's trademark cat double entendres excised from the adaption? I thought I'd watched Beane's in full, but missed it if there were any (the British episode of the adapted script had a lovely moment where Wendy Richard can be seen trying not to corpse at Mollie Sugden's solemn delivery of "this sort of thing just isn't fair on my pussy").

 

[Soaplover]

Yes, MATH ran less than forty episodes in total. It had actually wrapped up before Three's Company began, so technically there would have been enough material for almost two full-length American seasons, but yes, that would have then been followed by a (probably quite jarring) change in writers.






For what it's worth, I'd say Monty Python and (to a lesser extent) Benny Hill are somewhat "out there" by British standards, too. I've seen some of both but I never really found Benny Hill terribly funny, and the Python material, experimental as it was, seems to be a Curate's egg.

I'm always intrigued about the (relatively small) number of British sitcoms that seem to make it across the Atlantic. Keeping Up Appearances and Are You Being Served? seem to have been popular Stateside, while most other vehicles from their respective writers don't seem to have been. AbFab has elements - wry, cynical outlook and often unlikeable characters - that I've seen cited as being off-putting to non-Brits. I remember feeling surprised when I realised it was a hit in America.

None of this is problematic for me, but count me as slightly bemused about the reasons behind this block. Just when I think I've worked it out, there's a spanner in the works.

It seems comedy is one area where we are indeed "two nations separated by a common language". It could be interesting to study, but I suppose someone in TV land has already done that and decided that remaking British series is a safer/preferable option than screening the originals.

I can contest that the following were popular UK sitcoms here in the states:

Keeping Up with Appearances, Are you Being Served, Faulty Towers, AdFab, and The Vicar of Dibley

AdFab - A lot of people here in the states felt such sympathy for the daughter because she had to sacrifice her life/childhood to parent her.

A sitcom that was remade in the 2000s (I think) was called Coupling where they used the original UK scripts and the show fell flat. Right before the show was yanked off the schedule, the show produced an original episode that was somewhat funny.. but it was little to no late for the show.

In regards to Chrissy Snow:

Suzanne Somers said that the pony tail came because of issues with bleaching her hair and it was used to cover it.. and the show kept it as a look for the character... and SS stated she didn't view the Chrissy character as working after the first two seasons so she slowly started to go more broad and over the top in how she played the Chrissy character.

It was sort of what happened to SS on Step by Step where she said she had to really focus on not going for the punchline/funniest bit because she was playing the sitcom mom trope.. and that it was difficult for her at times. On that show, you did see the Carol character changing somewhat with her becoming a bit more broad in the later seasons vs her more matronly lower key take in the earlier seasons.

 

[Chris2]

I can contest that the following were popular UK sitcoms here in the states:

Keeping Up with Appearances, Are you Being Served, Faulty Towers, AdFab, and The Vicar of Dibley

Aside from appearances, the other three had US adaptations. AYBS, Vicar, and Abfab all had unsold US pilots. and Fawlty Towers had two official, short-lived adapatations in the US: “Amanda’s” starring Beatrice Arthur and “Payne“ starring John Larroquette.

 

[Crimson]

SS stated she didn't view the Chrissy character as working after the first two seasons so she slowly started to go more broad and over the top in how she played the Chrissy character.

Seems like code for not getting enough attention on camera and she wanted to go even broader than John Ritter; not that I blame her, all's fair in love and brinkmanship. SS may have been a media sensation but by S3 there was no doubt Ritter was the star of the show.

 

[ClassyCo]

Seems like code for not getting enough attention on camera and she wanted to go even broader than John Ritter; not that I blame her, all's fair in love and brinkmanship. SS may have been a media sensation but by S3 there was no doubt Ritter was the star of the show.

Apparently, there were issues when Ann Wedgeworth joined the cast at the start of Season 4. As the story goes, some of the cast were annoyed by the amount of screentime Wedgeworth got as Lana, the lusty divorcee who had eyes only for Jack, while dodging Mr. Furley around every corner.

If I had to bet, I'd say it was Suzanne Somers (and maybe even Joyce DeWitt) that complained about Wedgeworth's screentime, and in all honesty, I can understand the frustration. Ann was a newbie on the show, while Suzanne and Joyce had been there for three seasons already. I can also see Suzanne being irritated at the laughs Ann got from the audience.

 

[Daniel Avery]

Fawlty Towers had two official, short-lived adapatations in the US: “Amanda’s” starring Beatrice Arthur and “Payne“ starring John Larroquette.

Plus at least one failed pilot Snavely, with Harvey Korman and Betty White (!!!), made in 1978.

If anyone could have captured "American Basil Fawlty" it would have been Korman.

 

[Crimson]

If I had to bet, I'd say it was Suzanne Somers (and maybe even Joyce DeWitt) that complained about Wedgeworth's screentime, and in all honesty, I can understand the frustration.

While I don't doubt Somers and DeWitt did not welcome another woman cutting into their screen time, it was apparently Ritter who complained about Lana. He was said to find it implausible that horny Jack would turn down the advances of horny Lana, even if she was "older". Of course that whole cast was a mess of pathologies and rivalries, so who knows the real reason?

I find it interesting that Ritter seemingly escaped without taking any reputational damage. At minimum, he was content to be cast as the golden boy while his female co-stars were sidelined and discarded. And that's kindly assuming he wasn't actively conspiring with the network and producers to focus the spotlight on himself. Considering that he at least passively treated DeWitt quite shabbily at the end of the series run, I don't know that I give him that benefit of doubt.

 

[ClassyCo]

While I don't doubt Somers and DeWitt did not welcome another woman cutting into their screen time, it was apparently Ritter who complained about Lana. He was said to find it implausible that horny Jack would turn down the advances of horny Lana, even if she was "older". Of course that whole cast was a mess of pathologies and rivalries, so who knows the real reason?

Yes, I do know that John Ritter had issues with Lana as a character. "What am I doing?" he supposedly asked during rehearsal. "Saying it for a twelve-year-old?" Which, that in itself is a little disturbing.

Anyway, I recall their being off-camera circulations of jealousy concerning Wedgeworth's screen time and how the audience responded to her, and I don't see that coming from Ritter. But I could very well be wrong. I see Suzanne stomping her feet about cutting Ann's scenes and being upset that the audience laughed at her jokes.

I find it interesting that Ritter seemingly escaped without taking any reputational damage. At minimum, he was content to be cast as the golden boy while his female co-stars were sidelined and discarded. And that's kindly assuming he wasn't actively conspiring with the network and producers to focus the spotlight on himself. Considering that he at least passively treated DeWitt quite shabbily at the end of the series run, I don't know that I give him that benefit of doubt.

When you look at it, I'm sure Ritter was perfectly okay with ABC and the producers making THREE'S COMPANY into "The John Ritter Show". He already had it in his contract that he'd make more per episode than all of his co-stars, which apparently hurt Somers' renegotiation strategy in 1980 (among other things). I believe Joyce DeWitt is quoted as having said that Ritter, along with the producers, "lied to my face" about the show blurring into a continuation/spin-off at the conclusion of the eighth season. I mean, you know John was in the loop, as ABC saw him as their sitcom star, but he was perfectly fine leaving Joyce out on what was being planned. Maybe I'm wrong, but you don't do that type of stuff to your friends.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

The way the producer gushed about Lana/Wedgeworth, even decades later, one wonders about the objectivity behind the camera.

And their morphing self-destructively from THREE'S COMPANY to THREE'S A CROWD proves the judgment issues further.

 

[ClassyCo]

The way the producer gushed about Lana/Wedgeworth, even decades later, one wonders about the objectivity behind the camera.

The producers did seem to be genuinely excited to have Ann Wedgeworth join the cast. What few writers and producers I've heard express their dismay at her ultimate dismissal, have also complimented her talent and what they felt she could've brought to the show under the proper writing.

I seem to recall John Ritter complimenting Wedgeworth's looks and talent, while saying the dynamic between Jack and Lana appeared "false" because of Jack's womanizing nature and Lana's willingness to be his "snuggle bunny" whenever he wished. Wedgeworth, as one would imagine, was disappointed in what she had been promised and how her role ending up "dwindling down to practically nothing". Wedgeworth receives screen credit for thirteen episodes (due to contract obligations), but isn't presented but for nine episodes.

 

[Crimson]

The way the producer gushed about Lana/Wedgeworth, even decades later, one wonders about the objectivity behind the camera.

I think the producer was onto something though. By season four, the premise of the show was already getting tired. Furley lusting for Lana while Lana lusted for Jack was fresh. I think Ritter's alleged complaint that Jack wouldn't turn down Lana's advances missed the point. A man who objectifies women not enjoying being objectified by a woman is pretty damn funny; Eddie Murphy made a whole movie about it.

To me there is no "perfect" season of THREE'S COMPANY; I tend to like bits and pieces. I love the Lana season, but Chrissy had become annoying by then. I prefer Cindy over S4 Chrissy. I love the Ropers, but think Don Knotts integrated into the cast better; the Ropers seemed often relegated to a B-plot.

When you look at it, I'm sure Ritter was perfectly okay with ABC and the producers making THREE'S COMPANY into "The John Ritter Show". He already had it in his contract that he'd make more per episode than all of his co-stars

I think the producers decided early it was easier to have one star than three and played Ritter against his female co-stars. How active Ritter was in that is unclear. While I don't believe Somers' later recounting of events, she is right that the trio would have fared batter if they had stuck together the way the FRIENDS cast later did. "Every man of himself" only worked out for Ritter.

 

[Soaplover]

Season 4 seemed to be a soft reset for the show with bringing in Furley and Lana to take over the Roper role.. with Lana and Furley having more interaction with the main three. The camping episode is one of the funniest episodes of the show..imho.

I know the show revisits the older women objectifying Jack when Ellen Travoltra (of Charles in Charge fame) as his boss that makes passes at him at work.. but this time framing it as sexual harrassment on the job.. and Jack not being believed because of the idea that women weren't capable of that.

Season 5 is a transition season, and I think having Cindy on there as someone younger could have been a way to reset the naive blonde character (think season 1/2 of Chrissy)... but Cindy also participates in physical comedy with Jack. Most always focus on John Ritter and his physical comedic talent.. but Jennilee was so important with setting up the routine and doing so flawlessly. Sadly, the show just viewed her as a placeholder so she was never allowed to truly develop a character.

Season 6 had a strong intro for Terri, someone that kind of had the potential to be sarcastic with a heart... but after the first few episodes, the show just has be just be a placeholder.. even though the actress was charming. Eventually the show made her the straight man and made Janet the more spastic one.

 

[Crimson]

The camping episode is one of the funniest episodes of the show

I agree. Followed, for me, by the S5 guest appearance of the Ropers.

My own wished for cast for the remainder of the series was Cindy remaining (sorry, Terri), with Lana and the Ropers being at least recurring guests.

 

[Chris2]

I think the producers decided early it was easier to have one star than three and played Ritter against his female co-stars. How active Ritter was in that is unclear. While I don't believe Somers' later recounting of events, she is right that the trio would have fared batter if they had stuck together the way the FRIENDS cast later did. "Every man of himself" only worked out for Ritter.

Ritter would have been better off banding together with DeWitt and Somers to get profit participation (i.e. backend points) in the show. It made over $500 million in revenue in its initial syndication cycle. The three leads deserved a piece of that. And the producers ddn’t have to share it with a studio either, since TC was an independent production.

But I believe that John and Joyce were a naive in terms of the money the show was making and didn’t do anything about it. Suzanne wasn’t, but she didn’t have savvy representation to position herself for success in the negotiations. They absolutely should have banded together; it’s amazing to me that none of their agents made that happen.

I won’t blame John all that much for not telling Joyce about the spinoff; he was an employee, not a manager. And she was a colleague, not a friend. He naively trusted the producers of the show to handle the situation. And she was naive if she didn’t realize that they were going to eventually spin off the main character of the show, as they did with the British original. The lion’s share of the blame lies with producer Don Taffner and associates - they’re the ones who exploited the naïveté of their young cast, treated the women as disposable, and enjoyed humiliating Suzanne with her tiny part in the fifth season.

 

[ClassyCo]

I agree. Followed, for me, by the S5 guest appearance of the Ropers.

The camping episode is one of the funniest episodes of the show..imho.

"A-Camping We Will Go" is easily my favorite episode of the entire show. Whenever I need a "fix" on THREE'S COMPANY, that's usually the episode I'm going to first.

My own wished for cast for the remainder of the series was Cindy remaining (sorry, Terri), with Lana and the Ropers being at least recurring guests.

This is an interesting set-up, and I'm inclined to agree that this would've been a good cast of characters. Even if they didn't decide to bring the Ropers back or keep Lana full-time, it would've been nice had they brought them in occasionally.

I won’t blame John all that much for not telling Joyce about the spinoff; he was an employee, not a manager. And she was a colleague, not a friend. He naively trusted the producers of the show to handle the situation. And she was naive if she didn’t realize that they were going to eventually spin off the main character of the show, as they did with the British original. The lion’s share of the blame lies with producer Don Taffner and associates - they’re the ones who exploited the naïveté of their young cast, treated the women as disposable, and enjoyed humiliating Suzanne with her tiny part in the fifth season.

Ummm.... I'm divided here. Perhaps I've overestimated their off-screen friendship, but John and Joyce appeared to be close and thought of themselves more than co-workers. So, yeah, to me, he should've told her.

Season 5 is a transition season, and I think having Cindy on there as someone younger could have been a way to reset the naive blonde character (think season 1/2 of Chrissy)... but Cindy also participates in physical comedy with Jack. Most always focus on John Ritter and his physical comedic talent.. but Jennilee was so important with setting up the routine and doing so flawlessly. Sadly, the show just viewed her as a placeholder so she was never allowed to truly develop a character.

Season 5 is better than one might assume with all the issues going on behind-the-scenes. Honestly, the most "fractured" thing about the episodes is the fact that Suzanne is still in the opening credits and appears in those awkward scenes at the end of some of the episodes.

Season 6 had a strong intro for Terri, someone that kind of had the potential to be sarcastic with a heart... but after the first few episodes, the show just has be just be a placeholder.. even though the actress was charming. Eventually the show made her the straight man and made Janet the more spastic one.

Poor Priscilla Barnes was in over her head, and she admitted it. She felt all the attention for getting the job was unwarranted, and she instantly wanted out. The producers held her to her three-year contract, but were more than happy to sideline her.