First off, I love Stanley & Helen, but realistically, were they a little bit old to star in a sitcom as the stars? Would it have worked better if they added Larry Dallas to the cast perhaps?

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/theropers3.jpg

I don't think age really had anything to do with it. Some supporting characters just aren't meant to be leads. I haven't seen many of the episodes of the Ropers. I watched the first season but then ABC moved the show to Saturdays opposite Chips where it died. I of course watched Chips which I suppose appealed to a younger crowd so maybe I'm wrong....:lol:

I don't think the Ropers were too old. I think they were too shallow. She wanted to have fun in the bedroom and he didn't. That's hardly the basis for an entire series. They were basically one joke characters and as such couldn't carry a series.

i always liked the ropers they was a great comedy team.missed them on Three's company though

I don't think they were too old. But I do feel bad for Norman Fell: He really didn't want to do a spinoff and was content to stay on Three's Company. He knew a good thing when he had it.

It's too bad his manager didn't insist on a clause that would allow him to return to TC at any time if the show was cancelled. The clause stipulated one year, so the sleazeball producers waited until the year ran out and then told Fell the show was cancelled. He asked if he could still return, but no dice.

I just don't think their spinoff was something for most TC fans since it was a lot more slowed down and laid back type of show. It was defintely for older viewers. I don't think at age 15 I would have been recording episodes of the Ropers like I did with Three's Company

No, they weren't too old. Both Norman Fell and Audra Lindley were strong comedic actors that could have a well-written show work.

IMHO, the producers and writers never laid a solid groundwork for this show to succeed. Had they done so,The Roper's could have had several seasons (or more) based solely on the popularity of the characters.

If the show had after Three's Company like how Laverne and Shirley aired after Happy Days, the show would have been successful.

No, ropers were cool in my book! don nuts couldnt pull off what they did. Mr roper with his womanizing ways and his jokes and mrs roper always wanting mr roper but oddly enough this reminds me of a later show..? the bundy's. Why must they always copy synopsis from other shows? anyhow, I think what the ropers needed was more characters around this angle to carry on a show of their own..Here's a storyline: Downstairs lives two woman or three that mr roper stares at all the time and these woman have silly antics..maybe one is smart while the other two arent. then upstairs lives a buff hott man for mrs roper. And this stud is always doing stuff for her..this would have appealed to the younger audience if in fact they went with this premise.

I don't think it was age. To me, the writing and plots were weak along with the setting and neighbors. That about sums it up for me. Their age has nothing to do with it IMO.

It was supposed to a "fish out of water" premise with the lower class Ropers moving into a upper middle class existence and the writers really never developed it as such.

No, they weren't too old. Both Norman Fell and Audra Lindley were strong comedic actors that could have a well-written show work.

IMHO, the producers and writers never laid a solid groundwork for this show to succeed. Had they done so,The Roper's could have had several seasons (or more) based solely on the popularity of the characters.
I basically agree.--However,I think the show was still good enough to run a few extra seasons,but back when The Ropers originally aired there was still alot of quality tv shows being made and tough competition,unlike current tv.

i always liked the ropers they was a great comedy team.missed them on Three's company though
What the producers of Three's Company 'should' have done after The Ropers was cancelled is brought both of them back and made them the landlords once again.And they could have easily made Mr Furley become one of the neighbors instead.It would have made Threes Company later seasons better than they were.The producers really made a big mistake by not letting them return.

I personally agree that the Ropers weren't too old to have a successful sitcom, but let's take Brian's point and examine it. There is an age bias on TV; sure you can cite The Golden Girls as an exception, but by and large there are almost no successful comedies that centered around characters over the age of 50.

i agree least their apartment would of had a nice makeover furley was ok but he was to cartoonish ropers was a lot better.furley as neighbor would of made more sense

Well, The Jeffersons were about their age, and they were a sucessful spin-off!

Well, The Jeffersons were about their age, and they were a sucessful spin-off!

The Jeffersons were set in a big city unlike the Ropers. Plus the Ropers had no friends it was mainlty them

The Jeffersons were set in a big city unlike the Ropers. Plus the Ropers had no friends it was mainlty them
Exactly,so I think The Ropers short lived run was do to factors, other than their age.

I don't think age had anything to do with it. I just think they weren't strong enough Characters to carry their own show. The Jeffersons were in their late 40s-Late 50s, But they were much stronger characters and were a little more Popular. They had what it took to carry on a show.

The Ropers were fine as leading characters, IMO, but the Jeffrey, Anne, and David weren't the best characters for them to bounce off of. That premise worked well for "George & Mildred" because that was a pretty run-of-the-mill sitcom set-up in England in the 70s, but I think they should have tweaked it a bit for the US.

Instead of the Ropers' neighbors being a younger couple, maybe it could have been a glamorous, lusty, bitchy woman who was only a few years younger than them and could trade barbs with Stanley while being a close friend for Helen. And like TC had the Regal Beagle, The Ropers could have had a central meeting place, like a neighborhood country club or something, and the Jeffrey Brooks character could have appeared mainly in that setting.

Anne really added no comedy to the show at all. She was a lot like Carol on "Maude," there to just add some sex appeal and hipness to a pretty unsexy/unhip show. David, I liked, especially when they'd do the bit where Jeffrey tries to be funny but David just stares at him. The sad thing is that the blank stare he did was really the only acting the kid could do.

Really, though, I think The Ropers failed mainly because of the time change. It pulled in great ratings in the spring of '79, but putting it up against CHiPs was too much.

First off, I love Stanley & Helen, but realistically, were they a little bit old to star in a sitcom as the stars? Would it have worked better if they added Larry Dallas to the cast perhaps?

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/theropers3.jpg


Honestly, I disagree. I remember watching The Ropers as I was growing up, but I found myself disliking the supporting cast(especially annoying Jeffrey) more than Stanley and Helen. I mean, I loved them on 3's Company, and always found them to be pretty funny. I honestly believe if there was a better supporting cast the show may have been better.

Honestly, I disagree. I remember watching The Ropers as I was growing up, but I found myself disliking the supporting cast(especially annoying Jeffrey) more than Stanley and Helen. I mean, I loved them on 3's Company, and always found them to be pretty funny. I honestly believe if there was a better supporting cast the show may have been better.


One problem with the supporting cast was that 4 year old kid

One problem with the supporting cast was that 4 year old kid

LOL....Yeah, I do remember that kid. I guess he was supposed to add cuteness, but I didn't care much for the show featuring a small child either.

No, I don't think the Ropers were old enough to have their own show. I do agree that Stanley and Helen made better supporting characters than leads, but then I preferred Mr. Furley over them anyway as the landlord, so I didn't mind.

LOL....Yeah, I do remember that kid. I guess he was supposed to add cuteness, but I didn't care much for the show featuring a small child either.

The Ropers may have been the only show in TV history to feature a kid and it wasn't a family show

No, I don't think the Ropers were old enough to have their own show. I do agree that Stanley and Helen made better supporting characters than leads, but then I preferred Mr. Furley over them anyway as the landlord, so I didn't mind.


While I did like The Ropers on Three's Company, Mr. Furley was my favorite landlord.

While I did like The Ropers on Three's Company, Mr. Furley was my favorite landlord.

Every time I see Don Knotts as Furley in the reruns with those chains and leisure suits, I always lose it. :lol: To make it funnier, middle-aged men all over America at that time wrote to Mr. Knotts asking for fashion tips!! :eek: :crazy: :rofl:

Furley was ahead of his time -- he could slip right into the rap era with his chains and wild threads. He was the opposite of Stanley in that way -- Roper clung to old-fashioned looks (and of course the old car!).

Furley was ahead of his time -- he could slip right into the rap era with his chains and wild threads. He was the opposite of Stanley in that way -- Roper clung to old-fashioned looks (and of course the old car!).


That was always my problem with Furley,,,,,,,,He was the OPPOSITE of Roper

Furley was ahead of his time -- he could slip right into the rap era with his chains and wild threads. He was the opposite of Stanley in that way -- Roper clung to old-fashioned looks (and of course the old car!).

Yup!! I'm glad they went with someone toally unlike Mr. Roper for the new landlord. I think Mr. Furley was a lot more fun. (Not to take anything away from Mr. Fell's dry, deadpan humor...) :cool: :D

That was always my problem with Furley,,,,,,,,He was the OPPOSITE of Roper

Well, I give them credit for not having a similar character to replace Roper....that's the easy way out.

But I didn't care for Furley, so it didn't matter to me much.

I wish the Ropers could have come back.

The Ropers were fine as leading characters, IMO, but the Jeffrey, Anne, and David weren't the best characters for them to bounce off of. That premise worked well for "George & Mildred" because that was a pretty run-of-the-mill sitcom set-up in England in the 70s, but I think they should have tweaked it a bit for the US.

Instead of the Ropers' neighbors being a younger couple, maybe it could have been a glamorous, lusty, bitchy woman who was only a few years younger than them and could trade barbs with Stanley while being a close friend for Helen. And like TC had the Regal Beagle, The Ropers could have had a central meeting place, like a neighborhood country club or something, and the Jeffrey Brooks character could have appeared mainly in that setting.

Anne really added no comedy to the show at all. She was a lot like Carol on "Maude," there to just add some sex appeal and hipness to a pretty unsexy/unhip show. David, I liked, especially when they'd do the bit where Jeffrey tries to be funny but David just stares at him. The sad thing is that the blank stare he did was really the only acting the kid could do.

Really, though, I think The Ropers failed mainly because of the time change. It pulled in great ratings in the spring of '79, but putting it up against CHiPs was too much.

Regarding your comment on The Ropers having a central meeting place, George & Mildred often featured scenes with George and Jeffrey conversing (or often not) at the local pub.