Now, don't get me wrong. I loved Don Knotts as Mr. Furley. But I also loved the Ropers as played by Norman Fell and Audra Lindley. After three seasons Fell and Lindley were offered to star in their own sitcom as The Ropers. They were told if it was cancelled after one season, they could come back to Three's Company. There were even a couple of episodes in the fourth season where they came back and guest starred as way to promote their own show, which sank in the ratings anyway. The Ropers was cancelled after about a season and a half, so they weren't allowed to return. I know the show couldn't have three landlords and I'm not suggesting that Don Knotts should have left so they could come back. But I don't understand why they couldn't have been brought back as neighbors or something. It just seemed unfair. I don't think it was their fault their show wasn't a hit. They always had a good chemisrty when they were in a scene together. I think the producers came up with an ill conceived concept for their show.

Yea I think they absolutely got a raw deal. I really feel bad for Norman Fell because he never wanted to leave TC in the first place.

I think their return could have been explained with a few simple lines, like so:

JACK: Mr. and Mrs. Roper! You're back.
MR. ROPER: The crime in that neighborhood we lived in was terrible.
MRS. ROPER: There was no crime!
MR. ROPER: There was so and the neighbors were so noisy!
MRS. ROPER: Oh, Stanley, that's nonsense!
JANET: Then why did you move back?
MRS. ROPER: The rent was more. Stanley always was a cheapskate. Besides, we missed you kids.

yeah, they did get a raw deal. and i'm suggesting ralph furley should have gotten the boot. i think the ropers were so much funnier.

yeah, they did get a raw deal. and i'm suggesting ralph furley should have gotten the boot. i think the ropers were so much funnier.
I wouldn't go that far. If RF wasn't popular with the fans and if ratings suffered, their's no doubt in my mind that The Ropers would have come back.

Unless Norman Fell royally told the producers off for not letting them return initially. I wouldn't blame him if he had.

I wouldn't go that far. If RF wasn't popular with the fans and if ratings suffered, their's no doubt in my mind that The Ropers would have come back.

i'm not saying he was necessarily less popular with the TC crowd or critics or whatever,
but i much prefer the ropers as landlord.

I think they got screwed. ABC should have let them do another season of the Ropers, and aired it right after TC. Either that or they should have let Norman and Audra make a few guest appearances on TC each season. That one episode they appeared on after the Ropers was cancelled is one of my favorites.

That one episode they appeared on after the Ropers was cancelled is one of my favorites.

Are you sure that was after their show was cancelled and not before?:confused: The episode I'm thinking of was the one where Mrs. Roper ended up in bed with Mr. Furley.

Are you sure that was after their show was cancelled and not before?:confused: The episode I'm thinking of was the one where Mrs. Roper ended up in bed with Mr. Furley.

I'm sure. The episode "Night of the Ropers" aired in March 1981. The Ropers was cancelled after the 79-80 season.

Now, don't get me wrong. I loved Don Knotts as Mr. Furley. But I also loved the Ropers as played by Norman Fell and Audra Lindley. After three seasons Fell and Lindley were offered to star in their own sitcom as The Ropers. They were told if it was cancelled after one season, they could come back to Three's Company. There were even a couple of episodes in the fourth season where they came back and guest starred as way to promote their own show, which sank in the ratings anyway. The Ropers was cancelled after about a season and a half, so they weren't allowed to return. I know the show couldn't have three landlords and I'm not suggesting that Don Knotts should have left so they could come back. But I don't understand why they couldn't have been brought back as neighbors or something. It just seemed unfair. I don't think it was their fault their show wasn't a hit. They always had a good chemisrty when they were in a scene together. I think the producers came up with an ill conceived concept for their show. I agree. I think the Roper's got a raw deal. Like someone else stated, they could have been brought back as neighbors in the apt. building. I think that would have been cool. To see the Ropers, Furley, & the 3 roomates with Larry in tow, the ratings might have been higher in the last season. And then it might have even lasted a couple more years. Who knows.....

They should have at least showed up on the final episode at Janet's wedding.

I'm sure. The episode "Night of the Ropers" aired in March 1981. The Ropers was cancelled after the 79-80 season.

Yes! You are correct! Thanks for clearing that up. I just wonder since Chrissy wasn't in that episode and Cindy was, could the reason they brought the Ropers back have been because they were worried how not having Suzanne in an episode might effect the ratings? Anyway, the Ropers were as funny as ever in that one and they should have been brought back for the rest of the series.

They should have at least showed up on the final episode at Janet's wedding. I agree. The Roper's along with Chrissy & Cindy, too, should have been brought back for Janet's wedding. To acknowledge all of their contributions to the show. That would have been a more proper ending I think.

you bet they got a raw deal i always thought that abc kept the ropers show on the air just long enough so that norman and aurdas deadline to return to tc would expire and then they wouldnt have to worry about it anymore.

Yea I feel bad for norman and audra. They we really good for the show. I'm still wondering why their show the ropers lasted for a season & 1/2 thats really wierd, it ended just enough to not let the norman & audra come back!

I think they should have at least been minor characters for one or two more seasons.

I still was very surprised that Norman Fell and Audra Lindley still agreed to come back for a guest appearance one year after they were told they couldn't return to three's company

I still was very surprised that Norman Fell and Audra Lindley still agreed to come back for a guest appearance one year after they were told they couldn't return to three's company
Because that's how much class they had. They were given a rotten deal and should have been allowed to come back in one capcity or another. They also could have been written back into the show as having bought half the building from Ralph's brother.

Because that's how much class they had. They were given a rotten deal and should have been allowed to come back in one capcity or another. They also could have been written back into the show as having bought half the building from Ralph's brother.


I don't think Norman and Audry returning for a guest appearance had anything to do with having class, i think it had something to do with lots of CASH!!!!-lol

I don't think Norman and Audra returning for a guest appearance had anything to do with having class, i think it had something to do with lots of CASH!!!!-lol

When you're out of work, pride and class have nothing to do with it. It was nice to see them make an appearance for old times' sake. I was never really a big fan of Don Knotts as Ralph Furley. Furley's character seemed forced to me.

It's too bad that the "one season" thing had to be in the contract. I think it should have read that if The Ropers was cancelled, the two would have been allowed to return to Three's Company. Period.

It could have been explained easily that Furley's brother had to sell the apartment building due to business misfortunes or Ralph's ineptitude at running the complex. This would neatly coincide with The Ropers being forced to leave their condo for some reason and needing a home once again.

I agree. The Ropers along with Chrissy & Cindy, too, should have been brought back for Janet's wedding. To acknowledge all of their contributions to the show. That would have been a more proper ending I think.

There were too many bruised egos and lingering tensions between the actors (particularly John, Janet and Suzanne) for that to have happened at the time.

Even if say, an offer had been extended to Suzanne...would she have taken it??

It's like saying that Pete Best got a bad deal when the Beatles replaced him with Ringo Starr. Ringo could play drums a thousand times better. Pete wasn't the "best" as his name implied.

Don Knotts alone was funnier than the whole rest of the cast put together. And I'm saying that he was just a little bit funnier than John Ritter.

It's like saying that Pete Best got a bad deal when the Beatles replaced him with Ringo Starr. Ringo could play drums a thousand times better. Pete wasn't the "best" as his name implied.

Interesting analogy, but Pete Best had been replaced before The Beatles recorded and released their first album, so the general public never got to hear his drumming.

On the other hand, we did get three seasons of Norman and Audra as The Ropers, so I feel a comparison between them and Don Knotts as Furley is more valid.

I prefer the Ropers, you prefer Furley. Neither one of us is right or wrong.

Norman Fell and Audra Lindley got screwed royally, in my opinion.

I think they were both good in their own way, but Ralph Furley was defintiely funnier than the Ropers. They were good, but RF is just amazing.

I liked both because Norman and audrey always had that sexual tension thing going and furley was totally his own and didn't even need another person to make you laugh. His face said it all. Especially his karate chops. lol

Absoulutely. I was so happy to see Audrea in Friends and Cybill. Both she and Norman Fell were wonderful actors ;)

When was Audra in Friends?
:confused:

When was Audra in Friends?
:confused:

It was one of the early seasons. She played Phoebe's grandmother.:)

I was never really a big fan of Don Knotts as Ralph Furley. Furley's character seemed forced to me.

I completely agree here. Don't get me wrong, I thought Ralph Furley as a character could be very funny and amusing at times... I didn't 'hate' him or anything, in fact quite a few of my favorite episodes are Furley ones. But, the Ropers were just... better. For one thing the Ropers always seemed more realistic to me. The Furley character often stretched the bounds of my suspension of disbelief. Sure, it's a sitcom, but it sitll has to resemble Real Life, however broadly, for it to be funny! Sometimes (not always, but sometimes) Ralph Furley just over-did it...

The other thing was the Ropers offered a nice change of pace. There were many scenes in the Season 1-3 episodes that were just set in the Ropers' apartment, with Jack & Co. not involved. You had two believable and realistic people, played by an excellent, seasoned, talented actor and actress, and you didn't always have to see them around the trio to have a good funny scene. With Furley, that just wasn't an option, since he well, lived by himself. :) And so the show shifted from an ~80% (per average episode) focused on the trio - or on the trio & the Ropers - and ~20% (per episode) focused on the Ropers alone, to 100% focused on the trio, or on the trio & Furley. In my opinion, it hence became just a little more boring, since you stayed with the trio all the time.

It's too bad that the "one season" thing had to be in the contract. I think it should have read that if The Ropers was cancelled, the two would have been allowed to return to Three's Company. Period.

Yes, it indeed should have been. In Chris Mann's "Come and Knock on Our Door" book, I believe, Norman Fell (a.k.a. "Mr. Roper") stated that he and Audra Lindley were more or less forced out of Three's Company - which they had never wanted to leave - and into their own show, The Ropers. The only reason the "one season" clause was present was because Norman (and Audrey) absolutely insisted on it. Norman also says that he suspects that the decision to cancel The Ropers had been made long before its actual cancellation, and that the actual cancellation was delayed so that Norman and Audra wouldn't have the choice (as per the one season clause) of returning to TC.

Even if say, an offer had been extended to Suzanne...would she have taken it??

I believe I heard somewhere that Suzanne had wanted to play 'Vicky' in Three's a Crowd... but the producers/the network wouldn't let her.

I completely agree here. Don't get me wrong, I thought Ralph Furley as a character could be very funny and amusing at times... I didn't 'hate' him or anything, in fact quite a few of my favorite episodes are Furley ones. But, the Ropers were just... better. For one thing the Ropers always seemed more realistic to me. The Furley character often stretched the bounds of my suspension of disbelief. Sure, it's a sitcom, but it sitll has to resemble Real Life, however broadly, for it to be funny! Sometimes (not always, but sometimes) Ralph Furley just over-did it...

The other thing was the Ropers offered a nice change of pace. There were many scenes in the Season 1-3 episodes that were just set in the Ropers' apartment, with Jack & Co. not involved. You had two believable and realistic people, played by an excellent, seasoned, talented actor and actress, and you didn't always have to see them around the trio to have a good funny scene. With Furley, that just wasn't an option, since he well, lived by himself. :) And so the show shifted from an ~80% (per average episode) focused on the trio - or on the trio & the Ropers - and ~20% (per episode) focused on the Ropers alone, to 100% focused on the trio, or on the trio & Furley. In my opinion, it hence became just a little more boring, since you stayed with the trio all the time.



Yes, it indeed should have been. In Chris Mann's "Come and Knock on Our Door" book, I believe, Norman Fell (a.k.a. "Mr. Roper") stated that he and Audra Lindley were more or less forced out of Three's Company - which they had never wanted to leave - and into their own show, The Ropers. The only reason the "one season" clause was present was because Norman (and Audrey) absolutely insisted on it. Norman also says that he suspects that the decision to cancel The Ropers had been made long before its actual cancellation, and that the actual cancellation was delayed so that Norman and Audra wouldn't have the choice (as per the one season clause) of returning to TC.



One thing that wasn't in the TC book was how the Producers got Norman and Audra to make a Guest appearance in 1981 after telling them they coukd not return to the Show after the Ropers was cancelled

One thing that wasn't in the TC book was how the Producers got Norman and Audra to make a Guest appearance in 1981 after telling them they coukd not return to the Show after the Ropers was cancelled

Norman and Audra probably did that for the fans...

Norman and Audra probably did that for the fans...

And probably because they were out of work.:D

And probably because they were out of work.:D


I'm sure it was more to it than that

And probably because they were out of work.:D

I *really* don't think Norman and Audrey would have been *that* desperate for cash... plus it was only *one* episode, they couldn't have been paid that much....

They returned because they were class acts. Simple enough. And maybe for a paycheck ;)

I think they got a raw deal as well. I always missed the Ropers in later seasons and I too agree that ABC canceled the Ropers on purpose at the time that they did so Audra and Norman couldn't return.

They were quite popular so why were they "forced out"?

I never liked the Ropers spin-off much from what little I've seen of it.

Don't get me wrong, I love Don Knotts as Furley and a lot of my favorite episodes include him, but the Ropers were just classic and really truly added to the dynamic.

They returned because they were class acts. Simple enough. And maybe for a paycheck ;)

I think they got a raw deal as well. I always missed the Ropers in later seasons and I too agree that ABC canceled the Ropers on purpose at the time that they did so Audra and Norman couldn't return.

They were quite popular so why were they "forced out"?

I never liked the Ropers spin-off much from what little I've seen of it.

Don't get me wrong, I love Don Knotts as Furley and a lot of my favorite episodes include him, but the Ropers were just classic and really truly added to the dynamic.
:yeahthat

I agree completely. Furley was good but the Ropers really added stuff that Furley couldn't. Partially due to the way their characters were written.

Speculation has it that Norman & Audra were forced out (well, actually Norman was forced out... Audra supported leaving, or at least was neutral) because ABC thought it was getting too expensive to pay *two* people... hence why they substituted "Mr. Furley" (Don Knotts), so that they would only have to pay *one* person...

Unless someone has a SOURCE to back up why Norman and Audra came back to do the 1981 Guest Appearance, Please stop trying to answer my question because you don't know the answer. I'm currently researching this so I can find the real answer so please no more GUESSES at why YOU think they came back. Thank You

From their perspective it may have seemed like a raw deal, but just look at it realistically. When the show began all the cast members were virtually unknown besides a few bit parts. They were not stars. They were lucky to be on a show at all.

They got a chance to have Don Knotts who was a comic legend. Personally, if I had been in the producers' shoes I would have done the same thing. Out with the Ropers. In with Knotts.

If the Ropers were so "great", how come we never saw those two actors in anything else after that show. Hmm. That's a mystery. (Yeah, right.)

From their perspective it may have seemed like a raw deal, but just look at it realistically. When the show began all the cast members were virtually unknown besides a few bit parts. They were not stars. They were lucky to be on a show at all.

They got a chance to have Don Knotts who was a comic legend. Personally, if I had been in the producers' shoes I would have done the same thing. Out with the Ropers. In with Knotts.

If the Ropers were so "great", how come we never saw those two actors in anything else after that show. Hmm. That's a mystery. (Yeah, right.)



Norman Fell was in a 1982 Sitcom called-"Teachers Only"

From their perspective it may have seemed like a raw deal, but just look at it realistically. When the show began all the cast members were virtually unknown besides a few bit parts. They were not stars. They were lucky to be on a show at all.

That was the genius of casting people that were relatively unknown. So that the viewers would not have typecasted, preformed ideas of the actors and actresses on Three's Company.

They got a chance to have Don Knotts who was a comic legend. Personally, if I had been in the producers' shoes I would have done the same thing. Out with the Ropers. In with Knotts.

Don Knotts may have been a comic legend (well, I mean he was indeed a comic legend), but that doesn't automatically mean he would be better to have in Three's Company than Norman Fell and Audra Lindley. I like both the Ropers and Furley, but I certainly wouldn't say Furley is much better than the Ropers, or that Don Knotts did a much better job in Three's Company than Norman or Audrey did. There are many things to be considered when considering who to cast in a particular role, and there are even more things that one needs to (or should) consider when replacing well-loved characters - i.e. The Ropers - with a new character - i.e. Ralph Furley - played by a new actor.

If the Ropers were so "great", how come we never saw those two actors in anything else after that show. Hmm. That's a mystery. (Yeah, right.)

By the time The Ropers was over, they were old. Duh. :p