I never paid attention to this but i found out that once the Ropers premeired on ABC in March of 1979, there was no more new episodes of Three's Company until the month of May which was after the Ropers first season was already completed. So TC fans probably paid more attention to the Ropers because Three's Company was all repeats and it was on Tuesdays nights and it was a Three's Company connection until TC had new episodes. Funny how i just found that out.

Originally posted by TVShow Analyzer
I never paid attention to this but i found out that once the Ropers premeired on ABC in March of 1979, there was no more new episodes of Three's Company until the month of May which was after the Ropers first season was already completed. So TC fans probably paid more attention to the Ropers because Three's Company was all repeats and it was on Tuesdays nights and it was a Three's Company connection until TC had new episodes. Funny how i just found that out.


I think you need a job in TvLand :crazy:

I think you *might* be judging The Ropers too harshly (notice I said *might*... I concede that I *might* be wrong).

Nobody is going to argue and say that The Ropers was on an even par with Three's Company, but clearly the show had its merit. From what I understand, the show, for its second season, was moved to Sunday nights against the more popular Chips show, and the ratings sank.

Now, any of us can argue that had the show remained paired with Three's Company, The Ropers would have had a longer run. The fact that the ratings sank on a different night *might* indicate that The Ropers didn't have its own fanbase but inherited the spillover from Three's Company. This *might* be true. But consider this...

Suppose Three's Company had been moved to Sunday nights instead of The Ropers, would it have remained as strong in the ratings? It probably wouldn't have been cancelled, since it was one of ABC's cash cows (they would've switched it to another night), but my point is, even Three's Company would've suffered from being moved to that awful timeslot. Would anyone argue that this means Three's Company was an awful show?

Who knows how long The Ropers would've or should've lasted, but their bombing on Sunday nights is NOT a fair indication of how good or bad the show was. Many decent shows sink due to their unfortunate timeslots, just as many shows (that don't deserve to) make it because they're sandwiched in between hit shows or they're in a popular timeslot (a la Joey).

The Ropers wasn't meant to be Three's Company 2. It did have its own flavor and voice, just as The Jeffersons, Maude, Archie Bunker's Place and Good Times were different in voice and flavor from All in the Family. But clearly, the show should've been given a fairer shot at making it, and it wasn't. Whether the show was good or not is debatable, depending on one's taste, but that last statement is one thing that is fact. It wasn't treated fairly.

Ed

I think you *might* be judging The Ropers too harshly (notice I said *might*... I concede that I *might* be wrong).

Nobody is going to argue and say that The Ropers was on an even par with Three's Company, but clearly the show had its merit. From what I understand, the show, for its second season, was moved to Sunday nights against the more popular Chips show, and the ratings sank.

Now, any of us can argue that had the show remained paired with Three's Company, The Ropers would have had a longer run. The fact that the ratings sank on a different night *might* indicate that The Ropers didn't have its own fanbase but inherited the spillover from Three's Company. This *might* be true. But consider this...

Suppose Three's Company had been moved to Sunday nights instead of The Ropers, would it have remained as strong in the ratings? It probably wouldn't have been cancelled, since it was one of ABC's cash cows (they would've switched it to another night), but my point is, even Three's Company would've suffered from being moved to that awful timeslot. Would anyone argue that this means Three's Company was an awful show?

Who knows how long The Ropers would've or should've lasted, but their bombing on Sunday nights is NOT a fair indication of how good or bad the show was. Many decent shows sink due to their unfortunate timeslots, just as many shows (that don't deserve to) make it because they're sandwiched in between hit shows or they're in a popular timeslot (a la Joey).

The Ropers wasn't meant to be Three's Company 2. It did have its own flavor and voice, just as The Jeffersons, Maude, Archie Bunker's Place and Good Times were different in voice and flavor from All in the Family. But clearly, the show should've been given a fairer shot at making it, and it wasn't. Whether the show was good or not is debatable, depending on one's taste, but that last statement is one thing that is fact. It wasn't treated fairly.

Ed




It was an OK show. Watchable but not a show you can look at over and over again. I just keep the show around because I'm a tape trader

It was an OK show. Watchable but not a show you can look at over and over again. I just keep the show around because I'm a tape trader


I agree with that. It is an ok show, but overall not something worth continual viewing like Three's Company.

I agree with that. It is an ok show, but overall not something worth continual viewing like Three's Company.


Yeah the only Ropers eps I can watch over Are the ones when Larry, Jack, and the Girls appeared in.

Would anyone argue that this means Three's Company was an awful show?
Ed
That is untrue statement.If TC wasn't a good show,it would've never became a success when The Ropers left or when Chrissy left.I guess Don Knotts,Jennilee Harrison and Priscilla Barnes did such a great job at being Mr.Furley,Cindy Snow and Terri Alden that they kept the show on for 5 more years which is when they ran out of ideas for new episodes and decided to end it in September of 1984

That is untrue statement.If TC wasn't a good show,it would've never became a success when The Ropers left or when Chrissy left.I guess Don Knotts,Jennilee Harrison and Priscilla Barnes did such a great job at being Mr.Furley,Cindy Snow and Terri Alden that they kept the show on for 5 more years which is when they ran out of ideas for new episodes and decided to end it in September of 1984


He wasn't saying TC was a bad show, he was saying would it have been considered a bad show if it was moved to a Saturday or Sunday Night Time slot like ABC did with the Ropers.

I never paid attention to this but i found out that once the Ropers premeired on ABC in March of 1979, there was no more new episodes of Three's Company until the month of May which was after the Ropers first season was already completed. So TC fans probably paid more attention to the Ropers because Three's Company was all repeats and it was on Tuesdays nights and it was a Three's Company connection until TC had new episodes. Funny how i just found that out.

You're an idiot.

That is untrue statement.If TC wasn't a good show,it would've never became a success when The Ropers left or when Chrissy left.I guess Don Knotts,Jennilee Harrison and Priscilla Barnes did such a great job at being Mr.Furley,Cindy Snow and Terri Alden that they kept the show on for 5 more years which is when they ran out of ideas for new episodes and decided to end it in September of 1984

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with someone who thinks TODAY's WRESTLING is entertaining. I will say this; Three's Company was utter crap.

The Ropers was good-- until they went and did all sorts of wierd things... like adding Jenny to the cast towards the end who snuck through the window? I know last time I found someone upstairs at my house who was homeless, I just let her become part of my family. It's a pity that it was cancelled though... could have done so much better.

The Ropers was good-- until they went and did all sorts of wierd things... like adding Jenny to the cast towards the end who snuck through the window? I know last time I found someone upstairs at my house who was homeless, I just let her become part of my family. It's a pity that it was cancelled though... could have done so much better.


One character who wasn;t needed on the show was David, the little boy

I think you *might* be judging The Ropers too harshly (notice I said *might*... I concede that I *might* be wrong).

Nobody is going to argue and say that The Ropers was on an even par with Three's Company, but clearly the show had its merit. From what I understand, the show, for its second season, was moved to Sunday nights against the more popular Chips show, and the ratings sank.

Now, any of us can argue that had the show remained paired with Three's Company, The Ropers would have had a longer run. The fact that the ratings sank on a different night *might* indicate that The Ropers didn't have its own fanbase but inherited the spillover from Three's Company. This *might* be true. But consider this...

Suppose Three's Company had been moved to Sunday nights instead of The Ropers, would it have remained as strong in the ratings? It probably wouldn't have been cancelled, since it was one of ABC's cash cows (they would've switched it to another night), but my point is, even Three's Company would've suffered from being moved to that awful timeslot. Would anyone argue that this means Three's Company was an awful show?

Who knows how long The Ropers would've or should've lasted, but their bombing on Sunday nights is NOT a fair indication of how good or bad the show was. Many decent shows sink due to their unfortunate timeslots, just as many shows (that don't deserve to) make it because they're sandwiched in between hit shows or they're in a popular timeslot (a la Joey).

The Ropers wasn't meant to be Three's Company 2. It did have its own flavor and voice, just as The Jeffersons, Maude, Archie Bunker's Place and Good Times were different in voice and flavor from All in the Family. But clearly, the show should've been given a fairer shot at making it, and it wasn't. Whether the show was good or not is debatable, depending on one's taste, but that last statement is one thing that is fact. It wasn't treated fairly.

Ed


It was moved to Saturday nights opposite Chips which was even a worst night then Sundays. I stopped watching it then because Chips and BJ And The Bear were airing that night on NBC and they were 2 of my favorite shows. I didn't have a VCR then...most people probably didn't so The Ropers were out of luck.

It was moved to Saturday nights opposite Chips which was even a worst night then Sundays. I stopped watching it then because Chips and BJ And The Bear were airing that night on NBC and they were 2 of my favorite shows. I didn't have a VCR then...most people probably didn't so The Ropers were out of luck.

Right, which is what I think attributed to the show's cancellation, and not the quality of the show itself. It wasn't as good as its parent show Three's Company, but it still was funny in its own right and was a lot better than most shows today that pass for entertainment.

Ed

Right, which is what I think attributed to the show's cancellation, and not the quality of the show itself. It wasn't as good as its parent show Three's Company, but it still was funny in its own right and was a lot better than most shows today that pass for entertainment.

Ed


I'm still trying to figure out why they added a 18 year old girl to the show. Made no sense

I'm still trying to figure out why they added a 18 year old girl to the show. Made no sense


Who knows why they did it? Sometimes silly things are foisted upon a sitcom by the network itself instead of the producers. Perhaps ABC felt that the ratings were so slow that they wanted the show to have an 18 year old to serve as a draw for younger viewers. It's my understanding that the ratings were in the toilet once it was switched to Sunday nights. ABC probably didn't have enough intelligence to figure out it was due to the timeslot instead of the show itself, so they probably told the show to add a younger girl so that it could potentially draw more younger viewers, which (in ABC's eyes) would improve ratings. It may not have had anything to do with the producers or writers or with common 'sense'.

Mind you, I'm not an expert on the history of the show so this is merely speculation on my part. But sometimes a network can be the worst enemy to a TV show more than the writers, and that may have been what happened here. If ABC was dumb enough to move the show to Sunday nights to begin with, I wouldn't put it pass them to be dumb enough to insist that the show add an 18 year old girl.


Ed

Who knows why they did it? Sometimes silly things are foisted upon a sitcom by the network itself instead of the producers. Perhaps ABC felt that the ratings were so slow that they wanted the show to have an 18 year old to serve as a draw for younger viewers. It's my understanding that the ratings were in the toilet once it was switched to Sunday nights. ABC probably didn't have enough intelligence to figure out it was due to the timeslot instead of the show itself, so they probably told the show to add a younger girl so that it could potentially draw more younger viewers, which (in ABC's eyes) would improve ratings. It may not have had anything to do with the producers or writers or with common 'sense'.

Mind you, I'm not an expert on the history of the show so this is merely speculation on my part. But sometimes a network can be the worst enemy to a TV show more than the writers, and that may have been what happened here. If ABC was dumb enough to move the show to Sunday nights to begin with, I wouldn't put it pass them to be dumb enough to insist that the show add an 18 year old girl.


Ed



If ABC had just put the Ropers in the 9:30pm Timeslot on Tuesday Nights after Three's Company, the show would have lasted as long as TC. Probably until 84

If ABC had just put the Ropers in the 9:30pm Timeslot on Tuesday Nights after Three's Company, the show would have lasted as long as TC. Probably until 84

Exactly..the show was too new to lead off a night by itself especially opposite a hit series.

If ABC had just put the Ropers in the 9:30pm Timeslot on Tuesday Nights after Three's Company, the show would have lasted as long as TC. Probably until 84

That's an interesting thought. If The Ropers had lasted that long, it would've probably changed the finale of Three's Company by having the shows crossover into each other. Who knows, perhaps a crossover would've happened with Three's a Crowd as well.

Interesting, no?

Ed

That's an interesting thought. If The Ropers had lasted that long, it would've probably changed the finale of Three's Company by having the shows crossover into each other. Who knows, perhaps a crossover would've happened with Three's a Crowd as well.

Interesting, no?

Ed


Yeah maybe we could have seen The Ropers go to Jack's Bistro.

I never paid attention to this but i found out that once the Ropers premeired on ABC in March of 1979, there was no more new episodes of Three's Company until the month of May which was after the Ropers first season was already completed.


Reviving an old thread...during the '50s and '60s, most series had between 32-39 episodes per season and quite frequently aired new episodes right up until early June. By the late '60s and early '70s, seasons became much shorter, usually running 22-24 episodes consecutively from Sept-March. By the time the May sweeps rolled around, there were nothing but reruns on most nights.

Starting around 1978, networks started saving new episodes until May. I recall being surprised when looking at a May 1978 TVGuide and seeing new episodes listed for most shows, after weeks of reruns. It was around that year that started the trend of mixing new episodes with reruns throughout the year to save the new episodes for the sweeps, and it's been common ever since.

Just thought that would be of interest...

Reviving an old thread...during the '50s and '60s, most series had between 32-39 episodes per season and quite frequently aired new episodes right up until early June. By the late '60s and early '70s, seasons became much shorter, usually running 22-24 episodes consecutively from Sept-March. By the time the May sweeps rolled around, there were nothing but reruns on most nights.

Starting around 1978, networks started saving new episodes until May. I recall being surprised when looking at a May 1978 TVGuide and seeing new episodes listed for most shows, after weeks of reruns. It was around that year that started the trend of mixing new episodes with reruns throughout the year to save the new episodes for the sweeps, and it's been common ever since.

Just thought that would be of interest...


You revived an old thread to say something that has nothing to with the Topic of the thread???? What does have to do with the ropers being a top ten show??

So that I could point out that there was at least one additional first-run TC episode during The Ropers' limited run in the spring, contrary to what you "found out" wherever you found it out.

How do I know? I remember.

So that I could point out that there was at least one additional first-run TC episode during The Ropers' limited run in the spring, contrary to what you "found out" wherever you found it out.

How do I know? I remember.


The only way they can be confirmed is through old TV guides from March of 1979 to June of 1979. Defintely not your memory even though you were around at the time.

"Three's Company" was good slapstick comedy show- but, quality-wise, it was never on the level of classic sitcom like, say, "All in the Family." The Ropers characters were fine contained within TC, but outside of TC, they weren't as enjoyable.

I don't know how many remember this, but Laverne & Shirley was briefly moved from its timeslot (I think to Thursday) after Happy Days during the period when these 2 shows were always in the top ten. It was only a matter of weeks when it was moved back.

I don't know how many remember this, but Laverne & Shirley was briefly moved from its timeslot (I think to Thursday) after Happy Days during the period when these 2 shows were always in the top ten. It was only a matter of weeks when it was moved back.

I remember that time, why they would do it for one and not the other is beyond me. Maybe the producers didn't care for the Ropers and it was their way out to cancel the show.

L&S was already an established show when moved to Thursday Nights and was only moved to Thursday to GENERATE ratings on that night since it was such a hit on Tuesday Nights

Actually, could this have happened when Joannie Loves Chachi premiered?
Anyway, L&S must have took a dive in the ratings for ABC to quickly return it to Tuesday!

Actually, could this have happened when Joannie Loves Chachi premiered?
Anyway, L&S must have took a dive in the ratings for ABC to quickly return it to Tuesday!



JLC was actually the highest rated new show in TV history during it's first season