I am watching the show on Antenna TV on Channel 317 Charter, and I can't believe this show doesn't have the smooth and fluid look of videotape, like it is supposed to.

I am watching the show on Antenna TV on Channel 317 Charter, and I can't believe this show doesn't have the smooth and fluid look of videotape, like it is supposed to.


Antenna's TV quality for some shows is awful

Antenna's TV quality for some shows is awful

I noticed that this was the only videotaped show on Antenna TV with the "Film Look". All the other videotaped shows do not have it and look fine.

At least the series is being aired on TV, although it's a bad show. The Ropers were popular as supporting characters on Three's Company, but remove them from that element, give them their own show, minus John Ritter, along with poor writing, which yielded a recipe for failure. They became a boring old couple in a bad TV show.

At least the series is being aired on TV, although it's a bad show. The Ropers were popular as supporting characters on Three's Company, but remove them from that element, give them their own show, minus John Ritter, along with poor writing, which yielded a recipe for failure. They became a boring old couple in a bad TV show.


Ropers would have lasted 3 years if aired after Three's Company at 9:30 on ABC

Ropers would have lasted 3 years if aired after Three's Company at 9:30 on ABC
I say it would have lasted longer than 3 years if it always aired after Three's Company.

Probably would have lasted from 1979-84 if it had that time slot.

I could picture ABC canceling them both at the same time.

I say it would have lasted longer than 3 years if it always aired after Three's Company.

Probably would have lasted from 1979-84 if it had that time slot.

I could picture ABC canceling them both at the same time.

I don't think so. The Ropers was simply a bad show, scheduling it after Three's Company wouldn't have made a difference. In fact, had it been scheduled after Three's Company, it wouldn't have improved it's ratings, and eventually would have resulted in a ratings drop for Three's Company.

The Ropers were popular supporting characters in Three's Company, because they had the main characters to play off of. John Ritter for the most part, Suzanne Somers and Joyce DeWitt to a lesser extent. The Ropers were taken away from that element, and placed in their own show with bad writing. The series was doomed to fail from the beginning, no matter what time slot it was given.

They should have stayed on 3s Company.

They should have stayed on 3s Company.

Yes they should have. I never cared much for Don Knotts as the new landlord. The writing was already on the wall for The Ropers when their show was shifted to Saturday nights for the fall of '79.

Don Knotts was playing Barney Fife all over again on Three's Company.

Don Knotts was playing Barney Fife all over again on Three's Company.

True, he always played the same annoying type of character. Nervous guy with his eyes bugged out all the time. I didn't like him as Barney Fife either.

They should have stayed on 3s Company.
I agree. The show really was never as good with Furley as it was with the Ropers in my opinion.

I think The Ropers series was a failed result of ABC network greed. They had a hit with Three's Company, so someone at the network decided "Hey, let's spin off The Ropers!" The idea of a spin off was fine and dandy, but then they didn't know what to do with them. If the series had halfway decent writing, it potentially could have lasted 2 or 3 seasons. Maybe even 4.

I don't think so. The Ropers was simply a bad show, scheduling it after Three's Company wouldn't have made a difference. In fact, had it been scheduled after Three's Company, it wouldn't have improved it's ratings, and eventually would have resulted in a ratings drop for Three's Company.

The Ropers were popular supporting characters in Three's Company, because they had the main characters to play off of. John Ritter for the most part, Suzanne Somers and Joyce DeWitt to a lesser extent. The Ropers were taken away from that element, and placed in their own show with bad writing. The series was doomed to fail from the beginning, no matter what time slot it was given.

Yeah it may have been too much of a drop off of ratings if the Ropers aired after TC and eventually would have been moved

I think the first season it aired at 10pm on Tuesdays

The Ropers was #8 in ratings at the end of its 6 episode run in the spring of 1979, and apparently stayed popular when the network repeated the episodes that summer. But in the fall of that year, it was moved to the no-man's land of Saturday nights at 8 p.m., and ratings fell. Still, the show was only rated #25 when it was canceled.

For comparison, by the time Three's Company ended, its ratings had dipped as low as #56. Granted, Three's Company was a hugely established show, but still.

I think The Ropers could have easily made it a couple years if had stayed behind an anchor show. Audra Lindley mentioned she was surprised it was canceled so soon, seeing as the ratings weren't too terrible.

I think The Ropers series was a failed result of ABC network greed. They had a hit with Three's Company, so someone at the network decided "Hey, let's spin off The Ropers!" The idea of a spin off was fine and dandy, but then they didn't know what to do with them. If the series had halfway decent writing, it potentially could have lasted 2 or 3 seasons. Maybe even 4.

You are right about greed. The British version of Three's Company also had a successful landlord spinoff called George and Mildred that lasted for five seasons. There was even a George and Mildred film adaptation.

Once ABC had seen how successful Three's Company was, they thought the landlord spinoff would prove to be similarly lucrative. It's a shame, though; what works with British audiences often doesn't translate to American, and they overshot.

The Ropers was #8 in ratings at the end of its 6 episode run in the spring of 1979, and apparently stayed popular when the network repeated the episodes that summer. But in the fall of that year, it was moved to the no-man's land of Saturday nights at 8 p.m., and ratings fell. Still, the show was only rated #25 when it was canceled.

For comparison, by the time Three's Company ended, its ratings had dipped as low as #56. Granted, Three's Company was a hugely established show, but still.

I think The Ropers could have easily made it a couple years if had stayed behind an anchor show. Audra Lindley mentioned she was surprised it was canceled so soon, seeing as the ratings weren't too terrible.


The Ropers was not in the Top 25 when it was cancelled at the end of the 79-80 season

I got my info from the Three's Company book by Chris Mann, Come and Knock on Our Door. Where is your source?

I got my info from the Three's Company book by Chris Mann, Come and Knock on Our Door. Where is your source?

"Audra Lindley stated in Chris Mann's 1997 book about Three's Company, that she was surprised that The Ropers had been canceled after a late season surge in the series ratings that allowed it to finish the 1979-80 season at number 25; however, the Nielsen ratings for that year list the series Soap at number 25.[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ropers

Yeah, I know anybody can edit Wikipedia. But that's where I've read that The Ropers didn't finish in the top 25 for 1979-80. I bet they would have been renewed if they did, then again maybe not.

"Audra Lindley stated in Chris Mann's 1997 book about Three's Company, that she was surprised that The Ropers had been canceled after a late season surge in the series ratings that allowed it to finish the 1979-80 season at number 25; however, the Nielsen ratings for that year list the series Soap at number 25.[2]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ropers

Yeah, I know anybody can edit Wikipedia. But that's where I've read that The Ropers didn't finish in the top 25 for 1979-80. I bet they would have been renewed if they did, then again maybe not.

Yeah, I've see that, too, although the only source cited for that part of the Wikipedia article was the book I mentioned. No source for the actual Nielsen ratings. However, I did some quick research and it looks like The Ropers
didn't finish in the top 25, so perhaps Audra Lindley was just giving an estimation of what she thought the later episodes were rating.

Another webpage has 1979-80 Nielsen ratings, no Ropers even in the Top 32.

http://tvaholics.blogspot.com/2013/04/classic-tv-ratings-and-rankings-1979-80.html

Another webpage has 1979-80 Nielsen ratings, no Ropers even in the Top 32.

http://tvaholics.blogspot.com/2013/04/classic-tv-ratings-and-rankings-1979-80.html


Exactly, sounds that Chris Mann Book is ********

Exactly, sounds that Chris Mann Book is bullsh*t

When you write a book, let me know. When you read a book, let me know.

Exactly, sounds that Chris Mann Book is bullsh*t
I'm not sure about THAT....all I think is maybe Audra Lindley misspoke when she did an interview for the book.

And actually the book quoted Audra Lindley. The book itself didn't state exact ratings of the Ropers. But I guess if you haven't read it, you wouldn't know that.

The Ropers were not in the top 25 during season 2. The show was getting destroyed by CHIPS each week.

And actually the book quoted Audra Lindley. The book itself didn't state exact ratings of the Ropers. But I guess if you haven't read it, you wouldn't know that.


Well you didn't say that at first. You said the book listed the Ropers as #25 which I knew was a lie because if it wasn't it would have never been cancelled

The Ropers were not in the top 25 during season 2. The show was getting destroyed by CHIPS each week.

People on here posting false information:lol:

I then conceded the point to JSP, who CITED SOURCES. Try reading the rest of the comments before piling on, thanks.

Well you didn't say that at first. You said the book listed the Ropers as #25 which I knew was a lie because if it wasn't it would have never been cancelled
Leave her alone now. It wasn't like she was outright lying. She didn't intentionally post an untruth. She was quoting Audra Lindley from a book, who in turn was mistaken in her assessment of the show's ratings.

Leave her alone now. It wasn't like she was outright lying. She didn't intentionally post an untruth. She was quoting Audra Lindley from a book, who in turn was mistaken in her assessment of the show's ratings.


Glad we cleared all that up.

I got my info from the Three's Company book by Chris Mann, Come and Knock on Our Door. Where is your source?

I have that book, it's good, but that's one of the statements Chris or one of the editors should have double checked, since it was pretty easy to confirm or deny. But oh well, things slip by.

I have that book, it's good, but that's one of the statements Chris or one of the editors should have double checked, since it was pretty easy to confirm or deny. But oh well, things slip by.

The awesome thing is that I think a new edition is in the works for 2017 to celebrate Three's Company's 40th anniversary. Hopefully some of the mistakes will be corrected.

At least the series is being aired on TV, although it's a bad show. The Ropers were popular as supporting characters on Three's Company, but remove them from that element, give them their own show, minus John Ritter, along with poor writing, which yielded a recipe for failure. They became a boring old couple in a bad TV show.

Maybe the Ropers were just way too limited as characters for a long term spin off. Their issues invariably consist of Helen not getting any from Stanley and hating it and/or she thinks he's cheating on her. He's depending on your point of view, just an almost Archie Bunker style bigot that's cheap and frigid to his wife.

Exactly. They should have stayed on Threes' Company.

True, he always played the same annoying type of character. Nervous guy with his eyes bugged out all the time. I didn't like him as Barney Fife either.

Yes, those characters were annoying, including him in The Reluctant Astronaut, but he didn't always play that type. I did enjoy The Incredible Mr. Limpet, where his character was more low-key and milquetoast at the beginning of the movie and later became confident once he turned into a fish.