i thing if the producers and writers really wanted to they could have brought back the ropers. maybe they could have worked something out so don knotts stayed too? i missed the ropers after they left, it just was not the same.

i thing if the producers and writers really wanted to they could have brought back the ropers. maybe they could have worked something out so don knotts stayed too? i missed the ropers after they left, it just was not the same.


Because they had already been replaced by Furley and he was living in their apt.

Where was they going to live if they came back since they no longer owned the building?

Norman and Audra got totally screwed in that. So sad.

Norman and Audra got totally screwed in that. So sad.


But why would they think they would be returning if they already had a new landlord on TC?

But why would they think they would be returning if they already had a new landlord on TC?



According to the tv documentary, they were promised by Bergman and Taffner.

According to the tv documentary, they were promised by Bergman and Taffner.


But Norman and Audra were old enough to know that their characters were written out and that it was no way they could be regulars again since they were no longer the landlords.

And to me the promise made sense, if the show didn't last 1 season they could come back which made sense because Mr. Furley wasn't added yet. But once their spinoff was given another season how did they think they would be able to come back when TC company had a new landlord? lol

i thing if the producers and writers really wanted to they could have brought back the ropers

...but they didn't want to. Either they pay 2 actors or only 1. Choice is easy.

...but they didn't want to. Either they pay 2 actors or only 1. Choice is easy.


That's what it was all about LOL

Norman and Audra got totally screwed in that. So sad.

It is very sad. :( What's more sad is that I think The Ropers was actually a pretty funny show that had great potential and could've made it if they gave it more of a chance. I sure enjoyed it.
All in all, I think that even after all that happened, Norman and Audra were such good sports to appear on Three's Company again after their show was cancelled. That's class!!!

It is very sad. :( What's more sad is that I think The Ropers was actually a pretty funny show that had great potential and could've made it if they gave it more of a chance. I sure enjoyed it.
All in all, I think that even after all that happened, Norman and Audra were such good sports to appear on Three's Company again after their show was cancelled. That's class!!!


And I still don't know why that wasn't addressed in the True Hollywood story. How the hell did they get norman and audra to appear in a TC episode after telling them they couldn't come back as regulars? lol

And I still don't know why that wasn't addressed in the True Hollywood story. How the hell did they get norman and audra to appear in a TC episode after telling them they couldn't come back as regulars? lol

I haven't seen the E! True Hollywood Story of TC in so long because E! shows stupid crappy new ones about The Kardashians and whatnot instead of the ones I really want to see!! :lol:

I haven't seen the E! True Hollywood Story of TC in so long because E! shows stupid crappy new ones about The Kardashians and whatnot instead of the ones I really want to see!! :lol:


When I saw a THS of Snookie I stopped watching the channel. WHo the hell cares about her? lol

When I saw a THS of Snookie I stopped watching the channel. WHo the hell cares about her? lol

Exactly!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

And they made some really really good ones back in the day that I would really like to watch again!! Instead they show Basketball Wives... :rolleyes:

Exactly!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

And they made some really really good ones back in the day that I would really like to watch again!! Instead they show Basketball Wives... :rolleyes:


In all honesty, I never likes THS of sitcoms on E because it seemed like they didn't focus on the show itself, it was more of a biography of the actors lives and how they got started in the business.

I wanted to hear facts about the show not anything about what went on in the actor's life LOL

When I saw a THS of Snookie I stopped watching the channel. WHo the hell cares about her? lol


OMG! That was a wonderful reply because it was so accurate.

OMG! That was a wonderful reply because it was so accurate.


Someone who has been famous for 10 mins LOL

OMG! That was a wonderful reply because it was so accurate.


Dude, you are only preaching to the choir.

Someone who has been famous for 10 mins LOL

And famous for what??! ;) :lol: :lol: :lol:
These are not the True Hollywood Stories I want to see!!! :p

And famous for what??! ;) :lol: :lol: :lol:
These are not the True Hollywood Stories I want to see!!! :p


famous for being crazy and ugly:lol: :lol:

The story that is told is that Norman Fell and Audrey Lindley were promised to return to Three's Company should The Ropers not make it past one year. The Ropers lasted a little more than one year (March 13, 1979 – May 22, 1980) so Norman and Audrey's contract was up.

It is alleged that the producers waited until after the contractual year ended to formally cancel "The Ropers" to make Fell and Lindley's contract void. This was to prevent them coming back to the show which would get rid of Don Knotts.

Don Knotts was widely accepted on the show and they didn't want to change it at that point. It's possible that if Ralph Furley flopped then maybe they would have gotten rid of him and brought back The Ropers.

The story that is told is that Norman Fell and Audrey Lindley were promised to return to Three's Company should The Ropers not make it past one year. The Ropers lasted a little more than one year (March 13, 1979 – May 22, 1980) so Norman and Audrey's contract was up.

It is alleged that the producers waited until after the contractual year ended to formally cancel "The Ropers" to make Fell and Lindley's contract void. This was to prevent them coming back to the show which would get rid of Don Knotts.

Don Knotts was widely accepted on the show and they didn't want to change it at that point. It's possible that if Ralph Furley flopped then maybe they would have gotten rid of him and brought back The Ropers.


I still want to know how they got them to do a guest appearance in 1981

The story that is told is that Norman Fell and Audrey Lindley were promised to return to Three's Company should The Ropers not make it past one year. The Ropers lasted a little more than one year (March 13, 1979 – May 22, 1980) so Norman and Audrey's contract was up.

It is alleged that the producers waited until after the contractual year ended to formally cancel "The Ropers" to make Fell and Lindley's contract void. This was to prevent them coming back to the show which would get rid of Don Knotts.

Don Knotts was widely accepted on the show and they didn't want to change it at that point. It's possible that if Ralph Furley flopped then maybe they would have gotten rid of him and brought back The Ropers.

I favor Furley over The Ropers on TC, but still, they were completely wrong for that. :mad: :mad: :mad: That's why it's so classy that they came back...like true professionals. :)

They should have had The Ropers buy The Regal Beagle bar, and have re-occuring roles on Three's Company.

They should have had The Ropers buy The Regal Beagle bar, and have re-occuring roles on Three's Company.

Now that's a great solution right there!!! :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave:
Had they done that, we could've had Furley AND The Ropers!!! :wave: :wave:
Good idea!!!

They should have had The Ropers buy The Regal Beagle bar, and have re-occuring roles on Three's Company.



Great idea, damm shame the producers didn't think of it. Wait, it's a shame the producers DIDN"T want to think of it:lol:

I think they didn't have The Ropers and Furley on together because then they would have had to pay 3 people instead of 1.

I think they didn't have The Ropers and Furley on together because then they would have had to pay 3 people instead of 1.


The ropers should have never left and it was a shame they were FORCED to do a spinoff. Maybe the producers started thinking that the Ropers were not a good fit for Three's Company

The ropers should have never left and it was a shame they were FORCED to do a spinoff. Maybe the producers started thinking that the Ropers were not a good fit for Three's Company
the Ropers at the Beagle is a great idea !

they brought in Don Knotts as a ringer, there was no way they were getting rid of him. i am sure they spun-off the Ropers because they were trying to make the show more young and hip - so fo COURSE their first call was to Don Knotts.

the Ropers at the Beagle is a great idea !

they brought in Don Knotts as a ringer, there was no way they were getting rid of him. i am sure they spun-off the Ropers because they were trying to make the show more young and hip - so fo COURSE their first call was to Don Knotts.


What was young and hip about Don Knotts?

What was young and hip about Don Knotts?

I think he was being sarcastic. :lol: ;)

I always thought they spun-off The Ropers because they felt the two were such strong characters on their own that could carry their own show with separate storylines from TC, etc.

I thought The Ropers worked. I don't know why people didn't like it!! It was pretty funny!!!

I do, however, think that Furley was a better fit for TC. :)

I think he was being sarcastic. :lol: ;)

I always thought they spun-off The Ropers because they felt the two were such strong characters on their own that could carry their own show with separate storylines from TC, etc.

I thought The Ropers worked. I don't know why people didn't like it!! It was pretty funny!!!

I do, however, think that Furley was a better fit for TC. :)


I think it was because it was the Ropers and Helen's Mother and Sister which was kind of dull.

Have no idea why Helen's mother was in more than 1 episode

I think it was because it was the Ropers and Helen's Mother and Sister which was kind of dull.

Have no idea why Helen's mother was in more than 1 episode

See, I thought Helen's mother was hilarious!!! :lol: How she was so forgetful!! :lol: The episode where she has her "wake" is one of my favorites of the series!!! I liked Helen's sisters too.

I read somewhere that The Ropers was doing well in the ratings and then they moved it to another obscure time-slot, where it still did fairly well, but they still cancelled it. Not sure how much of this is true though.

i thing if the producers and writers really wanted to they could have brought back the ropers. maybe they could have worked something out so don knotts stayed too? i missed the ropers after they left, it just was not the same.
What were they supposed to do? Throw Mr. Furley out onto the streets and fire him from being landlord? Mr. Roper already sold the building to Bart Furley. It was too late and there was no way.

See, I thought Helen's mother was hilarious!!! :lol: How she was so forgetful!! :lol: The episode where she has her "wake" is one of my favorites of the series!!! I liked Helen's sisters too.

I read somewhere that The Ropers was doing well in the ratings and then they moved it to another obscure time-slot, where it still did fairly well, but they still cancelled it. Not sure how much of this is true though.



Those 1st season ratings were kind of misleading for 2 reasons

1. The season only had 6 episodes

2. The season for Three's Company had already ended so TC fans were all watching the premiere of the Ropers

Not sure how accurate Imdb is, but read this on their site:

When the network proposed the spin-off of Three's Company (i.e. that they should remake the UK series _"George and Mildred" (1976)_, which was the spin-off from Man About the House) focusing on the Ropers, Norman Fell and Audra Lindley weren't too keen on the idea. Norman Fell felt that you couldn't do a series with *only* the running gag of Mrs. Roper being undersexed. The network assured him the show would have more substance than that, and furthermore, if the show didn't make it a full season, he and Audra could come back full time to "Three's Company" as the Ropers. The Ropers made it a season and a half before it was canceled. As a result, Norman Fell and Audra Lindley were out of work, and there was nothing they could do about it because the show *did* make it a full season. However, they did reprise their roles as guest stars on "Three's Company" on a few episodes after "The Ropers" was dropped.

So if this information is correct, The Ropers was based on a spin-off of the British show that was spun-off of the British show on which Three's Company was based?? :lol: :lol: :lol: All those spins and I'm dizzy!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Maybe they had it in their plans to do this all along? Or wanted to mimic the British sitcoms' success?

This could also explain why they added all those extra characters for more substance because Norman and Audra weren't too sure about the idea at first.

Not sure how accurate Imdb is, but read this on their site:



So if this information is correct, The Ropers was based on a spin-off of the British show that was spun-off of the British show on which Three's Company was based?? :lol: :lol: :lol: All those spins and I'm dizzy!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Maybe they had it in their plans to do this all along? Or wanted to mimic the British sitcoms' success?

This could also explain why they added all those extra characters for more substance because Norman and Audra weren't too sure about the idea at first.

I heard somewhere that George & Mildred was actually more successful than Man About The House was.

I haven't seen the E! True Hollywood Story of TC in so long because E! shows stupid crappy new ones about The Kardashians and whatnot instead of the ones I really want to see!! :lol:

The last time E! did a True Hollywood Story that was worth watching it was for Charles In Charge. TV Guide jeered them for doing it. :rolleyes:

The last time E! did a True Hollywood Story that was worth watching it was for Charles In Charge. TV Guide jeered them for doing it. :rolleyes:


Why was that THS so great?

Why was that THS so great?

I just thought it was good because it was about an 80's sitcom. It was the last E! True Hollywood Story of its kind. Now all we get are ones about no-talent reality show stars. Someone at E! must have read the next issue of TV Guide. E! made their jeer list and they referred to Charles In Charge as "cheesy" and they said, "What's next, an E! True Hollywood Story for She's The Sheriff?"

I just thought it was good because it was about an 80's sitcom. It was the last E! True Hollywood Story of its kind. Now all we get are ones about no-talent reality show stars. Someone at E! must have read the next issue of TV Guide. E! made their jeer list and they referred to Charles In Charge as "cheesy" and they said, "What's next, an E! True Hollywood Story for She's The Sheriff?"


Seems like the ones I seen they never talk about the show, just the life of the actors.

I heard somewhere that George & Mildred was actually more successful than Man About The House was.

Wasn't there a British version of Three's A Crowd, also?

Wasn't there a British version of Three's A Crowd, also?


Yes

I think it would be interesting to see the British versions of these sitcoms just to compare!! I know All in the Family was based on a British sitcom as well as Sanford and Son. Maybe that was the thing back then?
I remember maybe 2002ish that they tried to replicate another British sitcom, Coupling on NBC, but it was a total bomb. I guess these things are hit and miss. You have The Office which was based on the British show, and that was a huge hit!!

And, I would MUCH RATHER watch an E! True Hollywood Story on She's The Sheriff rather than on The Kardashians...ugh!!!

They need to make another show like E! True Hollywood Story that goes more in-depth than Truth Behind the Sitcoms. Or, just bring back the old E! True Hollywood Story format. These new "celebrities" that are featured on E! True Hollywood Story are stories that I already know. These people are already constantly in the news. I want to know about classic/retro/iconic TV shows and stars that have since been buried in the past. I could do without Snookie, thank you very much!!! LOL!!!

I think it would be interesting to see the British versions of these sitcoms just to compare!! I know All in the Family was based on a British sitcom as well as Sanford and Son. Maybe that was the thing back then?
I remember maybe 2002ish that they tried to replicate another British sitcom, Coupling on NBC, but it was a total bomb. I guess these things are hit and miss. You have The Office which was based on the British show, and that was a huge hit!!

And, I would MUCH RATHER watch an E! True Hollywood Story on She's The Sheriff rather than on The Kardashians...ugh!!!

They need to make another show like E! True Hollywood Story that goes more in-depth than Truth Behind the Sitcoms. Or, just bring back the old E! True Hollywood Story format. These new "celebrities" that are featured on E! True Hollywood Story are stories that I already know. These people are already constantly in the news. I want to know about classic/retro/iconic TV shows and stars that have since been buried in the past. I could do without Snookie, thank you very much!!! LOL!!!


I like the part of the TC hollywood story when John Ritter was saying how ABC was so nice to them when the show was number 1. LOL


But that's what any professional job, the bosses are very nice to you when the company is doing well and when it's the opposite when things are not going well

I know Mr. Furley was the new landlord but he didnt buy the buliding remember? his brother bart did and made him the landlord. So the ropers could have came back and bart could have fired furley and being fired furley just rents a apartment in the building! i know this would have never happened but i still think something could have worked to bring the ropers back even if it was recurring roles, but i guess the producers were to cheap to pay them. In the book Come and knock on our door, the producers come across as ****** anyway! As for the show the ropers it is a funny show to bad it did not last longer

I know Mr. Furley was the new landlord but he didnt buy the buliding remember? his brother bart did and made him the landlord. So the ropers could have came back and bart could have fired furley and being fired furley just rents a apartment in the building! i know this would have never happened but i still think something could have worked to bring the ropers back even if it was recurring roles, but i guess the producers were to cheap to pay them. In the book Come and knock on our door, the producers come across as ****** anyway! As for the show the ropers it is a funny show to bad it did not last longer



Furley had already established himself as the new landlord so it was no way to add the Ropers back to the show

I think it would be interesting to see the British versions of these sitcoms just to compare!! I know All in the Family was based on a British sitcom as well as Sanford and Son. Maybe that was the thing back then?
I remember maybe 2002ish that they tried to replicate another British sitcom, Coupling on NBC, but it was a total bomb. I guess these things are hit and miss. You have The Office which was based on the British show, and that was a huge hit!!

And, I would MUCH RATHER watch an E! True Hollywood Story on She's The Sheriff rather than on The Kardashians...ugh!!!

They need to make another show like E! True Hollywood Story that goes more in-depth than Truth Behind the Sitcoms. Or, just bring back the old E! True Hollywood Story format. These new "celebrities" that are featured on E! True Hollywood Story are stories that I already know. These people are already constantly in the news. I want to know about classic/retro/iconic TV shows and stars that have since been buried in the past. I could do without Snookie, thank you very much!!! LOL!!!
I saw the British version of TC, once. I think TVLand aired it.:confused: By the way, there are alot of cable shows that originated from UK versions.

By the way, there are alot of cable shows that originated from UK versions.

Right, but the success of those shows doesn't always translate over to their American counterparts. And I'm sure it's vice-versa as well.

Furley had already established himself as the new landlord so it was no way to add the Ropers back to the show


Yes we all know Furley was the new landlord even though i wouldnt say he established himself, and the ropers were gone but if the producers had been smart and not ****** they would have got rid of furley nothing against don knotts but he cant compare to the ropers!! and brought back the ropers when their show ended. Thats why the first 3 seasons of threes company are the best, the ropers and the original trio, anything after that does not compare.

Yes we all know Furley was the new landlord even though i wouldnt say he established himself, and the ropers were gone but if the producers had been smart and not ****** they would have got rid of furley nothing against don knotts but he cant compare to the ropers!! and brought back the ropers when their show ended. Thats why the first 3 seasons of threes company are the best, the ropers and the original trio, anything after that does not compare.

It's the complete opposite for me. I much prefer season 4 onwards.

I guess we do agree on something though, The Roper and Furley eras were very different. I almost think that once the landlords switched, it became almost a different show.

It's the complete opposite for me. I much prefer season 4 onwards.

I guess we do agree on something though, The Roper and Furley eras were very different. I almost think that once the landlords switched, it became almost a different show.


yeah i guess everybody has their favorite characters and seasons, which is good because it gives lots to talk about, i do agree with you when the ropers left and furley came on it did feel like different shows.

yeah i guess everybody has their favorite characters and seasons, which is good because it gives lots to talk about, i do agree with you when the ropers left and furley came on it did feel like different shows.

I wonder if that was the original intention of the writers and producers or if it just happened that way by itself.

I wonder if that was the original intention of the writers and producers or if it just happened that way by itself.


I think the producers planned it that way, maybe it was their way of revamping the show, the ropers were gone furley is in, and the new character of lana,

But Norman and Audra were old enough to know that their characters were written out and that it was no way they could be regulars again since they were no longer the landlords.

And to me the promise made sense, if the show didn't last 1 season they could come back which made sense because Mr. Furley wasn't added yet. But once their spinoff was given another season how did they think they would be able to come back when TC company had a new landlord? lol

It was written into the contract that if The Ropers was canceled within the first year, the characters could return to the show. They waited until the show had been on the air for a year and then shortly afterwards, it was cancelled.

Norman Fell tried to get back on TC, but was told "no dice."

Yes, he and Audra Lindley were screwed. If I remember correctly, Norman Fell didn't even want to do the show, he was perfectly content to stay on TC.

famous for being crazy and ugly:lol: :lol:

...and slutty. That's how she ended up with her little meatball.

The Ropers were the heart and soul of Three's Company during their tenure, not Suzanne Somers, and not John Ritter. They stole the show every time they appeared, much like their British counterparts, George and Mildred Roper on Man About the House.

wonder what they would of said happend to the ropers condo they moved in to after they came back to three's company,just wondering that all

I am glad the Ropers did not come back, I like Mr. Furley better

I do not mind Mrs Roper but Mr Roper was really annoying with his tinkerbell jokes and it has gotten stale

Well, they weren't "forced", The "Ropers" on Man About the House, had their own spinoff, so the producers thought that the Three's Company Ropers would make for a successful spinoff. Norman Fell didn't want to do it, but Audrey did, so the die was cast.

It Sam could buy cheers back, the Ropers could of bought the building back.

It Sam could buy cheers back, the Ropers could of bought the building back.

I wish they had. Furley was an annoying character.

I too preferred the sardonic wit of the Norman Fell character.I think the big reason I didn't care for Ralph Furley was mainly because I like most characters I can either relate to or wouldn't mind having for a friend in real life,Furley was a man who made a fool of himself in his denial of his own aging process,a quality I find most annoying in true existence.Also,the fact that ol' Ralph was single made for a felt "missing element",the one previously provided by Audra Lindley's hilarious portrayal of Helen Roper.I was more than a little surprised that the couple's subsequent spinoff didn't fare as well as expected.

I still would like to know how they got Audra and Norman to come back as guest stars after telling them they couldn't return to the show at all.


Somebody was a smooth talker

I still would like to know how they got Audra and Norman to come back as guest stars after telling them they couldn't return to the show at all.


Somebody was a smooth talker

Or, the show's producers said to them, "We'd like you to make a guest appearance and we'll pay you."

I think Norman Fell, who was reluctant to do the spinoff, should have had a return to Three's Company clause that had no expiration date. But maybe his manager or agent didn't think to insist on that. Too bad.

Or, the show's producers said to them, "We'd like you to make a guest appearance and we'll pay you."

I think Norman Fell, who was reluctant to do the spinoff, should have had a return to Three's Company clause that had no expiration date. But maybe his manager or agent didn't think to insist on that. Too bad.



And I guess Norman said.............."What is your offer? lol

I just think it was a sad situation all around, because Three's Company lost two great characters and Norman Fell and Audra Lindley ultimately ended up out of work as a result of The Ropers spinoff.

It's really too bad that the original cast was not destined to go the distance, because once The Ropers and Chrissy were gone from the show, it was never the same.

And I did like Priscilla Barnes as Terri.

According to the tv documentary, they were promised by Bergman and Taffner.
In the same THS documentary Norman Fells recalls that according to the producers contract the deal was for the Ropers to return within a year if 'The Ropers' was a flop but because the show went on for 2 seasons then the 1 year expired, looks like Norman and Audra should've read the clause more closely.

In the same THS documentary Norman Fells recalls that according to the producers contract the deal was for the Ropers to return within a year if 'The Ropers' was a flop but because the show went on for 2 seasons then the 1 year expired, looks like Norman and Audra should've read the clause more closely.


Yes, that's what it said in their contract. But perhaps Bergman and Taffner made a verbal promise like friends often do in the business. I think that's what Fell was assuming.

In the same THS documentary Norman Fells recalls that according to the producers contract the deal was for the Ropers to return within a year if 'The Ropers' was a flop but because the show went on for 2 seasons then the 1 year expired, looks like Norman and Audra should've read the clause more closely.


They were stupid to fall for it since they knew the 1st season was a late season debut with 6 eps

They were stupid to fall for it since they knew the 1st season was a late season debut with 6 eps

Actually Three's Company premiered the same way in 1977, and it was a big success from the beginning, not dropping until sitcoms began fading in the early 80s.

Also The Ropers' UK counterpart show was a bigger success than its parent show, so maybe they thought the same could be true here. In any case, both Audra Lindley & Norman Fell were not hurting for work or $ after they left their Ropers characters. Both of them still made movies and guested on tv shows, and Fell in particular had a pretty good financial deal, from what I have read, with an early 80s NBC sitcom called Teachers Only, where he costarred with Lynn Redgrave.

Actually Three's Company premiered the same way in 1977, and it was a big success from the beginning, not dropping until sitcoms began fading in the early 80s.

Also The Ropers' UK counterpart show was a bigger success than its parent show, so maybe they thought the same could be true here. In any case, both Audra Lindley & Norman Fell were not hurting for work or $ after they left their Ropers characters. Both of them still made movies and guested on tv shows, and Fell in particular had a pretty good financial deal, from what I have read, with an early 80s NBC sitcom called Teachers Only, where he costarred with Lynn Redgrave.


Yeah that's true

It actually would have been easy to write the Ropers back in the show. Mr. Furley wasn't that established yet. The trio REALLY wasn't fond of him at all that first year (season 4). There was even an episode where they went out of their way to annoy him by making a lot of noise when they thought they would be moving to a different apartment. And there were episodes that showed Mr. Furley not exactly happy at running an apartment complex that belonged to his brother anyway. He could have easily been written out.

Give me the Ropers over Mr. Furley any day.

I adored the Ropers. They had the greatest chemistry together and always gave plenty of laughs. And over the course of their time on the show, I liked how they started referring to Jack, Janet and Chrissy as "the kids," almost like they were the kids they never had (despite Mr. Roper's teasing of Jack.)

It was the Ropers combined with Jack, Janet and Chrissy that made the show #1 in the ratings and an instant hit. Losing Norman, Audra and eventually Suzanne really threw away much of the show's magic. It still got laughs but it was never the same.

It actually would have been easy to write the Ropers back in the show. Mr. Furley wasn't that established yet. The trio REALLY wasn't fond of him at all that first year (season 4). There was even an episode where they went out of their way to annoy him by making a lot of noise when they thought they would be moving to a different apartment. And there were episodes that showed Mr. Furley not exactly happy at running an apartment complex that belonged to his brother anyway. He could have easily been written out.

Give me the Ropers over Mr. Furley any day.

I adored the Ropers. They had the greatest chemistry together and always gave plenty of laughs. And over the course of their time on the show, I liked how they started referring to Jack, Janet and Chrissy as "the kids," almost like they were the kids they never had (despite Mr. Roper's teasing of Jack.)

It was the Ropers combined with Jack, Janet and Chrissy that made the show #1 in the ratings and an instant hit. Losing Norman, Audra and eventually Suzanne really threw away much of the show's magic. It still got laughs but it was never the same.

Agree on all counts. Couldn't stand Don Knotts as Furley. One of the most over-the-top, annoying sitcom characters ever.

It actually would have been easy to write the Ropers back in the show. Mr. Furley wasn't that established yet. The trio REALLY wasn't fond of him at all that first year (season 4). There was even an episode where they went out of their way to annoy him by making a lot of noise when they thought they would be moving to a different apartment. And there were episodes that showed Mr. Furley not exactly happy at running an apartment complex that belonged to his brother anyway. He could have easily been written out.

Give me the Ropers over Mr. Furley any day.

I adored the Ropers. They had the greatest chemistry together and always gave plenty of laughs. And over the course of their time on the show, I liked how they started referring to Jack, Janet and Chrissy as "the kids," almost like they were the kids they never had (despite Mr. Roper's teasing of Jack.)

It was the Ropers combined with Jack, Janet and Chrissy that made the show #1 in the ratings and an instant hit. Losing Norman, Audra and eventually Suzanne really threw away much of the show's magic. It still got laughs but it was never the same.
If the ratings would have fallen they would have came back. Fact is, most of the fans accepted Don Knotts as the new landlord. Lana didn't work out so they got rid of her so they were open to doing that if they needed to . I liked The Ropers and Mr. furley. I think the cast changes kept the show fresh although I agree that the early years were the best.

If the ratings would have fallen they would have came back. Fact is, most of the fans accepted Don Knotts as the new landlord. Lana didn't work out so they got rid of her so they were open to doing that if they needed to . I liked The Ropers and Mr. furley. I think the cast changes kept the show fresh although I agree that the early years were the best.


The fact that it was a new person living below the trio should have told both Norman and Audra that they were no longer going to be regulars lol

The fact that it was a new person living below the trio should have told both Norman and Audra that they were no longer going to be regulars lol
They should have asked to be able to come back after a year and a half and not just a year. There was little doubt that the Ropers would make it to year 2 after it was scheduled on ABC's Tuesday lineup. lol

They should have asked to be able to come back after a year and a half and not just a year. There was little doubt that the Ropers would make it to year 2 after it was scheduled on ABC's Tuesday lineup. lol


I guess Florence was able to return to the Jeffersons because it was just her. And with the Ropers it was TWO people lol

They should have asked to be able to come back after a year and a half and not just a year. There was little doubt that the Ropers would make it to year 2 after it was scheduled on ABC's Tuesday lineup. lol

If I were Norman Fell, I would have insisted on a clause that allowed them to return no matter what the timeframe was. If the show is cancelled, then that means an automatic return.

If I were Norman Fell, I would have insisted on a clause that allowed them to return no matter what the timeframe was. If the show is cancelled, then that means an automatic return.


I think they could have done that if there was no more focus on the downstairs apt. Like a offscreen Landlord

I think they could have done that if there was no more focus on the downstairs apt. Like a offscreen Landlord

Yeah, but a show like that needs the interfering, meddlesome landlord. Still, I would love to have seen Furley's expression when he learned he was being evicted. If The Ropers had returned, you see....

i thing if the producers and writers really wanted to they could have brought back the ropers. maybe they could have worked something out so don knotts stayed too? i missed the ropers after they left, it just was not the same.

I agree! The show was never the same after the Ropers left.Can't see why the producers didn't simply bring them back after their own spin-off show was cancelled.

It actually would have been easy to write the Ropers back in the show. Mr. Furley wasn't that established yet. The trio REALLY wasn't fond of him at all that first year (season 4). There was even an episode where they went out of their way to annoy him by making a lot of noise when they thought they would be moving to a different apartment. And there were episodes that showed Mr. Furley not exactly happy at running an apartment complex that belonged to his brother anyway. He could have easily been written out.

Give me the Ropers over Mr. Furley any day.

I adored the Ropers. They had the greatest chemistry together and always gave plenty of laughs. And over the course of their time on the show, I liked how they started referring to Jack, Janet and Chrissy as "the kids," almost like they were the kids they never had (despite Mr. Roper's teasing of Jack.)

It was the Ropers combined with Jack, Janet and Chrissy that made the show #1 in the ratings and an instant hit. Losing Norman, Audra and eventually Suzanne really threw away much of the show's magic. It still got laughs but it was never the same.

I agree with everything you said.No disrespect to Don Knotts/Mr.Furley,but I don't think his character was nearly as funny and as interesting as the Ropers.

Also, Norman Fell was more natural as a comic. I loved it when he looked into the camera after he made a joke.

I agree! The show was never the same after the Ropers left.Can't see why the producers didn't simply bring them back after their own spin-off show was cancelled.


Because it was someone else living in their apartment

Also, Norman Fell was more natural as a comic. I loved it when he looked into the camera after he made a joke.

Yes! :lol: