Granted, this show wasn't Shakespeare, but what killed the show was the Brookes. Seeing the Ropers in reruns, there are segments with them that NO ONE laughs - it's dead air. They were NOT funny, especially Jeffrey Tabor. He was sitcom poison. The show should have featured the Ropers exclusively. They should have reworked the show and it "might" have lasted longer.

Granted, this show wasn't Shakespeare, but what killed the show was the Brookes. Seeing the Ropers in reruns, there are segments with them that NO ONE laughs - it's dead air. They were NOT funny, especially Jeffrey Tabor. He was sitcom poison. The show should have featured the Ropers exclusively. They should have reworked the show and it "might" have lasted longer.



Who the hell wanted to see Helen and Stanley for 30 mins? Now I don't think the kid was needed at all but had no issue with the Brookes

I guess we will have to disagree. The actors that played the Brookes were absolutely wretched. It was, literally, painful to see them say their lines with absolutely none of the audience laughing.

I guess we will have to disagree. The actors that played the Brookes were absolutely wretched. It was, literally, painful to see them say their lines with absolutely none of the audience laughing.


I enjoyed looking at Ann's A$$!!!!!!!!!:wave:

The Ropers were killed by awful timeslots on their second season, had ABC left the show alone it would have lasted a while longer.

The Ropers were killed by awful timeslots on their second season, had ABC left the show alone it would have lasted a while longer.



It should have aired at 9:30pm right after THree;s Company

It the Ropers themselves that killed it, nobody wants to see a one-note joke stretched to 30 minutes every week which is why the Ropers were best in small doses on Threes Company

I always thought the worst opening in the history of television is what killed this show.

The kid wasn't needed

CHIPS killed The Ropers.

^ This.

I've forgotten...once "The Ropers" were cancelled, did the characters ever appear on Three's Company again? Were they ever referred to at all?

I've forgotten...once "The Ropers" were cancelled, did the characters ever appear on Three's Company again? Were they ever referred to at all?


When the show was cancelled, the Ropers didn't appear on Three's Company until season 6 of Three's Company. That was the last time they were seen and referred to on Three's Company

Actually it was toward the end of Season 5. That was when they met Cindy.

Actually it was toward the end of Season 5. That was when they met Cindy.


Right, I had 1981 in my head and thought season six but it was the end of season 5 in the spring of 1981

I Had heard before that they wanted to come back permanently to Three's Company but the people in charge said no :(

I Had heard before that they wanted to come back permanently to Three's Company but the people in charge said no :(


It was no way for them to come back since it was already someone living in their own apartment.

What killed the show was that some characters belong as supporting characters, not stars of their own show - and The Ropers were those characters who were best in supporting others. Another example is "Phyllis" from MTM.

What killed the show was the setting of the show, having a older couple in the quiet suburbs:lol:

What killed the show was that some characters belong as supporting characters, not stars of their own show - and The Ropers were those characters who were best in supporting others. Another example is "Phyllis" from MTM.

Spot on!

Airing against CHiPs didn't help either.:D

I Had heard before that they wanted to come back permanently to Three's Company but the people in charge said no :(


I recall on some retrospective show Norman Fell said that they "promised" the if the Ropers failed in the first year they would write them back into Threes Company.

Just found this online.

With Three as Company continued success in its second season, the Three’s Company’s own producers pitched the spin off. Fell, however, was extremely reluctant (and rightfully so) as he was satisfied with his role on a show that was already a proven hit. Fell feared (correctly) that a spin-off would be unsuccessful and thus put him out of a good role and job. To alleviate his fears, Three’s Company producers contractually promised Fell that they would give the new series a year to prove itself. If unsuccessful, then he and Lindley would return to Three’s Company. A reluctant Fell agreed to the new terms.

What Happened? I’ll tell you, they went up against CHIPS—Now who could compete with that? Eric Estrata, Larry Wilcox—not a chance and it showed in an audience drop that put it an immediate fall into the bottom ten. The drop in ratings and the fact that the show wasn’t appealing to the young demographic audience to the show’s cancellation in May 1980. After viewing several of the episodes, I don’t care where they placed it, it stunk on ice.

When the series was canceled, Fell approached Three’s Company producers about returning to the show. The Ropers had been replaced on Three’s Company by legendary Don Knotts, playing the swinging Ralph Furley who had worked well with the theme of Three’s Company that had retained its popularity. Apparently Fell would later state that he always believed the decision to pull the plug on the show had been made early on, but that the network deliberately postponed making the cancellation official until after the one-year mark specifically to be relieved of the obligation to allow Fell and Lindley to return to Three’s Company.

Thats pretty bad. The Ropes were really good on TC.

I recall on some retrospective show Norman Fell said that they "promised" the if the Ropers failed in the first year they would write them back into Threes Company.

Just found this online.



Thats pretty bad. The Ropes were really good on TC.



It was the first season not year

They should have brought them back more than once out of loyalty.

The character of Mr. Brooks was completely out of place. Jeffrey Tambor played the role great; without it, he may never have had a career. But it made no sense that such a stuffed shirt and a miser like Stanley didn't get along. The character should have been an overcharitable, softhearted do-gooder who always tried to get Stanley to give his money away. And think of how Helen would have reacted!

The show was no good to begin with. I was about 10 years old then and even I couldn't stand Stanley or Helen Roper, they were just two terrible and unlikable people. Whoever thought it was a good idea to spin those two characters off into their own sitcom should've been shot LOL. I've even tried watching a couple episodes on YouTube and I still hate them!

Ed.

They should have brought them back more than once out of loyalty.


Hollywood and loyalty do not go together.

The show was no good to begin with. I was about 10 years old then and even I couldn't stand Stanley or Helen Roper, they were just two terrible and unlikable people. Whoever thought it was a good idea to spin those two characters off into their own sitcom should've been shot LOL. I've even tried watching a couple episodes on YouTube and I still hate them!

Ed.


The producers of TC knew the show would fail which their way of getting them off TC and adding Don Knotts