Leaving Three’s Company, something he didn’t want to do? He lost everything. ABC had to promise them both that they could return to Three's Company if it flopped in order to convince them to take the leap.

Of course, ABC lied through its teeth. They purposely gave it a second season (that trial run in the spring of 1979 was technically the first season) so they wouldn't have to bring them back. Don Knotts was too popular (he was already on TC for almost a season) and was less expensive than the Ropers' combined salaries. Plus the show already had personnel "issues".

Leaving Three’s Company, something he didn’t want to do? He lost everything. ABC had to promise them both that they could return to Three's Company if it flopped in order to convince them to take the leap.

Of course, ABC lied through its teeth. They purposely gave it a second season (that trial run in the spring of 1979 was technically the first season) so they wouldn't have to bring them back. Don Knotts was too popular (he was already on TC for almost a season) and was less expensive than the Ropers' combined salaries. Plus the show already had personnel "issues".

That's why I was always surprised that Norman and Audra made a guest appearance on TC a year after their show was cancelled

Do we have any evidence that Norman Fell was pissed at Audra? I can see why he would be upset but wouldn't have TC just fired them if they didn't go to the Ropers?

It's clear they wanted to bring in Don Knotts plus he was a much bigger star than Fell or Lindley.

Do we have any evidence that Norman Fell was pissed at Audra? I can see why he would be upset but wouldn't have TC just fired them if they didn't go to the Ropers?

It's clear they wanted to bring in Don Knotts plus he was a much bigger star than Fell or Lindley.

He wasn't that upset since he came back to TC for a guest spot

He wasn't that upset since he came back to TC for a guest spot

But he could've done that just for the money though. I assume he got around 30 grand an episode or a little less because the female roommates made that much.

I'm not saying he was in a massive rage YELLING at Audra or something! :lol:

But he could've done that just for the money though. I assume he got around 30 grand an episode or a little less because the female roommates made that much.

I'm not saying he was in a massive rage YELLING at Audra or something! :lol:

Yeah that will always be a mystery because he mentioned it on the true hollywood story but didn't mention his guest appearance in 1981 lol

The ratings for the Ropers were very high for the first season, so that is why it was renewed for a second season. I believe it was the producers that made the agreement with Norman and not ABC. I have never heard about Norman being angry with Audra or blaming her for what happened. He was rather disappointed that he could not return to Three's Company, since the Ropers did not become successful.

The ratings for the Ropers were very high for the first season, so that is why it was renewed for a second season. I believe it was the producers that made the agreement with Norman and not ABC. I have never heard about Norman being angry with Audra or blaming her for what happened. He was rather disappointed that he could not return to Three's Company, since the Ropers did not become successful.

The Ropers was a great show! At least compared to the garbage on today. The comic interaction between Brooks and Roper was hilarious and the Ropers was definitely good enough to get a 3rd season so they definitely got screwed!

Gilligan's Island will always be the most renewal deserving sitcom because producer Sherwood Schwartz had already been told to come back for a 4th season and even had scripts written when the rug was pulled out from under them!

But the Ropers has to be #2 or #3 on the list.

The ratings for the Ropers were very high for the first season, so that is why it was renewed for a second season. I believe it was the producers that made the agreement with Norman and not ABC. I have never heard about Norman being angry with Audra or blaming her for what happened. He was rather disappointed that he could not return to Three's Company, since the Ropers did not become successful.

That's only because it was a mid season replacement and had 6 episodes.

Why were the producers were so determined to keep Norman and Audrey off of Three's Company? From a morally or pragmatic perspective, and not a technical point of view, did they renege on their promise to to bring the Ropers back to Three's Company in the event that their spin-off failed?

To clarify, didn't the contract stipulate that if the series failed to run X number of episodes (which may have been about 1.5 years), then Fell and Lindley could return. But, once The Ropers proved to be dead in the water, did the producers seem to intentionally keep it alive until that contract clause was met?

Why were the producers were so determined to keep Norman and Audrey off of Three's Company? From a morally or pragmatic perspective, and not a technical point of view, did they renege on their promise to to bring the Ropers back to Three's Company in the event that their spin-off failed?

To clarify, didn't the contract stipulate that if the series failed to run X number of episodes (which may have been about 1.5 years), then Fell and Lindley could return. But, once The Ropers proved to be dead in the water, did the producers seem to intentionally keep it alive until that contract clause was met?

They was told if the show didnt last 1 season they could come back. Remember there was no furley yet during the 1st season of the ropers so if the season failed then they would have easily been back on the show. Once season 2 started that's when furley was introduced as the new landlord and that should have told Norman and audra they wasnt coming back

No way the Ropers got 30k to guest appear on The Night of The Ropers. The star cast did not get 30k per episode until Suzanne left and their contracts were renewed. Even when they were on Threes Company, they were supporting roles and would not make nearly as much as the 3 stars.
A few things have not been mentioned or need to be put in context. ABC floated the idea of a spin off much earlier than the 3rd season. After the outstanding success of the short first season, there was already talk that The Ropers shut down immediately. When Threes Company became hugely successful, the money finally lured them away. Norman was smart enough to know it was a gamble and put in the contract he could got back to Threes Company if The Ropers did not last 2 seasons. Here is where the controversy is. Norman felt season 1 was only a few shows and not a real season. The ratings for season 1 were very good so of course it was renewed for a second season which tanked in the ratings. ABC held to the contract stating he could not go back to Threes Company because there were 2 seasons of the Ropers. Norman felt cheated because it was really only 1.5. He should have counted shows, not seasons (looking back of course). I am sure they threw them a bone to appear on another episode of Threes Company. Its a fairly good episode too IMHO.
I am curious what the Ropers were paid as stars of their own show. I saw one interview with Audra in 1982 where she stated she was not bothered about going back. She said it would not have felt right. But you don't know if she was telling the truth or not.
As I stated on other threads, The Ropers had some of the funniest lines on Threes Company. However, their short and brief banter was a key spice that led to the success of Threes Company. Its hard to build an entire show around spice characters. It even got more complicated because The Ropers had nothing to do. Stanley no longer had the kids to hound or bother. Stanley also stopped insulting Helen. Helen had nothing to do and no longer was the heroine of saving the kids from Stanley's wrath. Her sexual prowl was gone too. No wonder the show failed to be a success.

No way the Ropers got 30k to guest appear on The Night of The Ropers. The star cast did not get 30k per episode until Suzanne left and their contracts were renewed. Even when they were on Threes Company, they were supporting roles and would not make nearly as much as the 3 stars.
A few things have not been mentioned or need to be put in context. ABC floated the idea of a spin off much earlier than the 3rd season. After the outstanding success of the short first season, there was already talk that The Ropers shut down immediately. When Threes Company became hugely successful, the money finally lured them away. Norman was smart enough to know it was a gamble and put in the contract he could got back to Threes Company if The Ropers did not last 2 seasons. Here is where the controversy is. Norman felt season 1 was only a few shows and not a real season. The ratings for season 1 were very good so of course it was renewed for a second season which tanked in the ratings. ABC held to the contract stating he could not go back to Threes Company because there were 2 seasons of the Ropers. Norman felt cheated because it was really only 1.5. He should have counted shows, not seasons (looking back of course). I am sure they threw them a bone to appear on another episode of Threes Company. Its a fairly good episode too IMHO.
I am curious what the Ropers were paid as stars of their own show. I saw one interview with Audra in 1982 where she stated she was not bothered about going back. She said it would not have felt right. But you don't know if she was telling the truth or not.
As I stated on other threads, The Ropers had some of the funniest lines on Threes Company. However, their short and brief banter was a key spice that led to the success of Threes Company. Its hard to build an entire show around spice characters. It even got more complicated because The Ropers had nothing to do. Stanley no longer had the kids to hound or bother. Stanley also stopped insulting Helen. Helen had nothing to do and no longer was the heroine of saving the kids from Stanley's wrath. Her sexual prowl was gone too. No wonder the show failed to be a success.


The THS of Three's company was not a good program because it never explained why the ropers made a guest appearance after being denied coming back to TC

No way the Ropers got 30k to guest appear on The Night of The Ropers. The star cast did not get 30k per episode until Suzanne left and their contracts were renewed. Even when they were on Threes Company, they were supporting roles and would not make nearly as much as the 3 stars.
A few things have not been mentioned or need to be put in context. ABC floated the idea of a spin off much earlier than the 3rd season. After the outstanding success of the short first season, there was already talk that The Ropers shut down immediately. When Threes Company became hugely successful, the money finally lured them away. Norman was smart enough to know it was a gamble and put in the contract he could got back to Threes Company if The Ropers did not last 2 seasons. Here is where the controversy is. Norman felt season 1 was only a few shows and not a real season. The ratings for season 1 were very good so of course it was renewed for a second season which tanked in the ratings. ABC held to the contract stating he could not go back to Threes Company because there were 2 seasons of the Ropers. Norman felt cheated because it was really only 1.5. He should have counted shows, not seasons (looking back of course). I am sure they threw them a bone to appear on another episode of Threes Company. Its a fairly good episode too IMHO.
I am curious what the Ropers were paid as stars of their own show. I saw one interview with Audra in 1982 where she stated she was not bothered about going back. She said it would not have felt right. But you don't know if she was telling the truth or not.
As I stated on other threads, The Ropers had some of the funniest lines on Threes Company. However, their short and brief banter was a key spice that led to the success of Threes Company. Its hard to build an entire show around spice characters. It even got more complicated because The Ropers had nothing to do. Stanley no longer had the kids to hound or bother. Stanley also stopped insulting Helen. Helen had nothing to do and no longer was the heroine of saving the kids from Stanley's wrath. Her sexual prowl was gone too. No wonder the show failed to be a success.

I saw a documentary on TC that stated early on in the show after such great ratings they tore up their contracts & gave John a raise to $50K per episode & the girls a raise to $30K an episode.

But the Ropers coming back was in Season 5 so I thought by then with the seniority they had it could be that much. How little you think they made for their guest spot??

I saw a documentary on TC that stated early on in the show after such great ratings they tore up their contracts & gave John a raise to $50K per episode & the girls a raise to $30K an episode.

But the Ropers coming back was in Season 5 so I thought by then with the seniority they had it could be that much. How little you think they made for their guest spot??
I have watched the Threes Company documentary that is on Youtube and saw Suzanne interviews over the years. Oh how they wish they could have torn up their contracts. I dont think ABC or any network would allow that. When shows get big, the stars try to re-negotiate their contracts. Suzanne's model was Penny Marshal from Laverne and Shirley. She re-negotiated with ABC and got a huge raise. The next season the show started to tank in ratings. ABC learned a lesson and would not budge on Suzanne's request. I forget who said it but after Suzanne left, the Joyce and John eventually got a new contract for $30k per episode. Suzanne jumped too soon even though she was right in the sense they were grossly underpaid compared to other hit shows on other networks. I would have no idea how much the Ropers made for their guest appearance but I bet it was the same or maybe a little more than anyone else would have gotten as a guest star.
Joyce sat out one episode "Stanley's Hotline" in season 3 because of pay and her contract. They brought Jack's girlfriend at the time to take Joyce's lines. Joyce won but she only got a tiny bit more.

I saw a documentary on TC that stated early on in the show after such great ratings they tore up their contracts & gave John a raise to $50K per episode & the girls a raise to $30K an episode.

But the Ropers coming back was in Season 5 so I thought by then with the seniority they had it could be that much. How little you think they made for their guest spot??

I want to research that because I always wanted to know how the producers got them to do a guest spot

I want to research that because I always wanted to know how the producers got them to do a guest spot
I am not sure why anyone would think it was odd for the Ropers to appear on TC after the Ropers was cancelled. They threw them a bone and it was nice to see them again. ABC did the same thing for Roper's neighbor. After the Ropers cancellation, he made 3 guest appearances playing various roles. In the 1982 Audra interview on Youtube she said she was honored and it was fun to come back and do that episode and see everyone again. I dont think their appearance needs an explanation. It was fun.

I am not sure why anyone would think it was odd for the Ropers to appear on TC after the Ropers was cancelled. They threw them a bone and it was nice to see them again. ABC did the same thing for Roper's neighbor. After the Ropers cancellation, he made 3 guest appearances playing various roles. In the 1982 Audra interview on Youtube she said she was honored and it was fun to come back and do that episode and see everyone again. I dont think their appearance needs an explanation. It was fun.

Jeffery Tambor was only a supporting character so he was glad to get more work. In the case of Norman and Audra, they was told they were denied a steady income and later offered a one time guest shot

Jeffery Tambor was only a supporting character so he was glad to get more work. In the case of Norman and Audra, they was told they were denied a steady income and later offered a one time guest shot
No one forced them to go. The money was good enough to go to their own series. They knew sitcoms get cancelled but they probably doubled their money and thought even a few seasons we are better off.
There were way too much cast changes with Suzanne leaving, the Ropers leaving, and Ralph the new landlord to bring them back. If the new landlord flopped then maybe but it worked out really good. They also could have refused to do the guest appearance. Everyone got what they wanted. But clearly you cant have it all....all the time ;)

I am not sure why anyone would think it was odd for the Ropers to appear on TC after the Ropers was cancelled. They threw them a bone and it was nice to see them again. ABC did the same thing for Roper's neighbor. After the Ropers cancellation, he made 3 guest appearances playing various roles. In the 1982 Audra interview on Youtube she said she was honored and it was fun to come back and do that episode and see everyone again. I dont think their appearance needs an explanation. It was fun.

Plus they both got a payday when acting jobs for people their age isn't easy. I'm sure they knew, like we all do, that work in Hollywood is never guaranteed!

eg7i7iSKcIE

He didn't want to do it! He really didn't! But after the third season of Three's Company, Norman Fell and Audra Lindley left (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyfOV3sHBtY) their hit TV series. Watch this video to learn more about their decision and what happened next!

eg7i7iSKcIE

old news

Supposedly, the contract stating they could return to TC was for one year. Fell believed ABC had planned to cancel the show after its first full season, but waited until after the full year had passed, so they wouldn't be locked in to return to TC.

Supposedly, the contract stating they could return to TC was for one year. Fell believed ABC had planned to cancel the show after its first full season, but waited until after the full year had passed, so they wouldn't be locked in to return to TC.

He should have known they wasnt coming when a new landlord was in his apt lol

You would think. :) Also- maybe there were financial stipulations in the contract, too- like, if the show was cancelled within that year, they'd get financial compensation if they didn't return to TC.

You would think. :) Also- maybe there were financial stipulations in the contract, too- like, if the show was cancelled within that year, they'd get financial compensation if they didn't return to TC.

I still would like to know why they felt the need to change the landlord. Something I will never know the answer to. Like why was it so important to get someone OPPOSITE of Roper