I laughed my you know what off when watching the episode where Jack and Mr Furley both are barking like dogs to each other .
My parents were huge Dallas fans back in the day. It shows how far TV dramas have come, as that show would be a lower tier drama nowadays, yet was considered one of the best back then.
They had a first-class crew on Dallas and spent a ton of money on it. In that respect, it was the polar opposite of Three's Company, which was cheap and crappy by comparison. You can make a good argument that the film shows -- even film sitcoms like Mary Tyler Moore and Bob Newhart -- looked a lot better than videotape shows like All in the Family and Three's Company.
I had no idea the series was out of print, until someone mentioned it earlier in the thread. I have the first 4 seasons, which is probably enough (I do remember loving Cindy, as a kid, though, so I've always thought about getting season 5), but I'm kicking myself, because someone was selling the boxset on Facebook Marketplace for $10 or $20 not long ago.
Dallas and Knots Landing, in their heyday, were well-plotted, well-produced serials. They were never prestige dramas or anything, but they were entertaining for what they were. And Larry Hagman was a very talented, versatile actor. He was nominated for an Emmy a couple of times, but never won, which is a bit of a shame. And I agree, those videotaped sitcoms of the 70s look awful now. At least the old filmed shows can be cleaned up and seen in HD. The blu-rays of I Love Lucy are pretty stunning in terms of how good a 70-year-old show can look. But the videotaped shows are stuck in relatively low-resolution.
You wouldn't have to try too hard to convince anyone of that. They look like VHS dubs even at their best. lol But I can deal with that much better than I can deal with them cropping and blowing up old shows to fit to wide screen when they remaster a show for HD, though I've just accepted that this is how it will be from now on.
I don't remember how much I paid at Walmart for the complete series, but I think it was in the $30/$35 range.
Gotta agree. Yes, there's no accounting for taste, but this show just seemed to always revolve around the same theme: there's some miscommunication in which one character doesn't that xxxxxx, but another character does, and then... hilarity ensues or some such.
That was the one star I had to see the last time I was in Hollywood. That's very cool of Cuoco. 8 Simple Rules wasn't the greatest show but I watched it because of Ritter. The episode with Don Knotts was aweseome! I really enjoyed Three's Company when it first aired but I was ten when it started so that has something to do with it. I still enjoy it and kept putting off buying the DVD set. When I finally got around to buying it, it was out of print and goes for crazy prices now. Hopefully, they'll press up some more at some point.
It's based on classic French farce from the 1800's- but seriously, compared to a lot of comedies today Three's Company looks smart. That is a sad state of affairs.
This is one of those shows that I feel like I should enjoy more. Unfortunately I don't. I can't find any fault with the show. I just never liked it.
Some of you guys need to lighten up. It's just a TV show. It examines the dynamics of how the two sexes interact, and looks at sexism and bigotry against gays in the late 70s. The setting is in the so-called liberal bastion that is Los Angeles, CA, was probably intentional to further expose that myth. In a way, the writers of Three's Company did the same thing that Norman Lear did with his shows All In The Family, Maude, and The Jeffersons, expose topical issues in a humorous way that fit the times. While Three's Company avoided race and politics, it tackled: hyper and toxic masculinity gender equality religion conservatism marital infidelity sexual frustration gender bias joblessness stereotypes job discrimination friendship landlord abuses ...and many more I can't think of at the moment. In my opinion, if you wat TV that isn't topical to some degree, don't watch TV!
Yep, yep, yep. Many shows rely on the gimmick of one character overhearing another character saying something that sounds incriminating (but isn't), completely misunderstands, and the entire show is a series of events that leads to everybody eventually understanding "no, Uncle Charlie isn't dying" or "no, dad didn't lose his job" or "no, Miss X is not really pregnant." It's very gimmicky. It did that in a way that was stupid and pandering to the point of being insulting. The Lear shows generally didn't go that far, but Good Times came pretty close; both John Amos and Esther Rolle quit the show over disputes over how lame and stereotypical the scripts had become over time. I can't get 10 minutes into an episode of Three's Company without saying, "my god, this is so bad." I have seen a few episodes (forced to by friends, or it was in the background while we were doing other things), but it's not my idea of a good show. Zero Emmy Awards for writing, direction, or show, but John Ritter (who I've often said was a good actor) did win the show's only Emmy. To me, if you go back and look at the Writers Guild Awards or the Emmy Award winners, you'll generally find the bulk of what I'd consider to be good shows that stood the test of time. Three's Company ain't that.
A strange comment to make on a board like this... Every topic posted on all the forums here can easily solicit a "lighten up" response. If that's the response, why discuss anything on this board as all the topics are trivial? This board thrives on pages and pages of passionate responses to trivial topics. That's why we are here. "Some of you guys need to lighten up. It's just another Beatles reissue." "Some of you guys need to lighten up. It's just a brickwalled remix." "Some of you guys need to lighten up. It's just another RSD list."