I love Threes Company and I love The Ropers. But I understand why the show did not work. The banter between the Ropers was hysterical on Threes Company. Each show they had a few minutes of banter or insults that were fall out of the chair funny. They were part of the spice that made Threes Company work. However, to build a full show around their funny banter would be hard. However, the creators of this show failed miserably.

The Ropers did not work. Stanley was no longer the apartment owner/manager who would barge into the kid's apartment and cause havoc. Helen was the anti-hero that saved the kids from Mr Roper.
Stanley and Helen needed something to do.

The hostility towards the neighbor got old after a few shows. On Threes Company the Ropers were the ones that interfered with the main actors of the show. On the Ropers, the neighbor just annoys Mr Roper. Not the same.

Helen was so sexually frustrated on Threes Company that it was part of the fun of the show. On the Ropers, she is not as sexually frustrated and her role was not really chasing Stanley anymore. Their arguments were over dumb stuff and Helen almost seemed less intelligent than from Threes Company.

By the time they introduced another character living with the Ropers, it was too late. But the character of Ginny did give Helen something to do.

How the show could have succeeded"
Gave Stanley a job around the townhouses
Made Ginny move in at the beginning
Helen just as sexually frustrated and kept the banter between them
ABC would air it directly after Threes Company
More cross over between shows. The kids should have visited and vice versa. Larry did visit on season one. But after the first episode, the kids were never really mentioned again.

Its hard to write a show about an older couple with no jobs and when you remove the banter from the show that made them famous. Even harder when you remove them from the power center of the building and have them barging in on the younger kids.

I love Threes Company and I love The Ropers. But I understand why the show did not work. The banter between the Ropers was hysterical on Threes Company. Each show they had a few minutes of banter or insults that were fall out of the chair funny. They were part of the spice that made Threes Company work. However, to build a full show around their funny banter would be hard. However, the creators of this show failed miserably.

The Ropers did not work. Stanley was no longer the apartment owner/manager who would barge into the kid's apartment and cause havoc. Helen was the anti-hero that saved the kids from Mr Roper.
Stanley and Helen needed something to do.

The hostility towards the neighbor got old after a few shows. On Threes Company the Ropers were the ones that interfered with the main actors of the show. On the Ropers, the neighbor just annoys Mr Roper. Not the same.

Helen was so sexually frustrated on Threes Company that it was part of the fun of the show. On the Ropers, she is not as sexually frustrated and her role was not really chasing Stanley anymore. Their arguments were over dumb stuff and Helen almost seemed less intelligent than from Threes Company.

By the time they introduced another character living with the Ropers, it was too late. But the character of Ginny did give Helen something to do.

How the show could have succeeded"
Gave Stanley a job around the townhouses
Made Ginny move in at the beginning
Helen just as sexually frustrated and kept the banter between them
ABC would air it directly after Threes Company
More cross over between shows. The kids should have visited and vice versa. Larry did visit on season one. But after the first episode, the kids were never really mentioned again.

Its hard to write a show about an older couple with no jobs and when you remove the banter from the show that made them famous. Even harder when you remove them from the power center of the building and have them barging in on the younger kids.
Welcome. I actually liked The Ropers and I think the reason it didn’t work was because of Ann’s husband’s persona and the useless addition of Jenny. I’ll take it any day over Three’s A Crowd though.

I love The Ropers too. I was just explaining why the show did not catch on. A great example is we never once saw the Roper's bedroom on the show. On Threes Company, the Roper's bedroom was frequently featured especially with them in bed. Its almost like Helen gave up on Stanley and they had no purpose in life.
Some of their funniest banter was in bed. Remember "The babysitters" Threes Company episode where Crissy is on the phone with Helen in bed and Stanley's mind is wondering who she is talking to. Its so freaking funny.
The show tried to make the Ropers something different than what made them famous on Threes Company.

I love The Ropers too. I was just explaining why the show did not catch on. A great example is we never once saw the Roper's bedroom on the show. On Threes Company, the Roper's bedroom was frequently featured especially with them in bed. Its almost like Helen gave up on Stanley and they had no purpose in life.
Some of their funniest banter was in bed. Remember "The babysitters" Threes Company episode where Crissy is on the phone with Helen in bed and Stanley's mind is wondering who she is talking to. Its so freaking funny.
The show tried to make the Ropers something different than what made them famous on Threes Company.
I wish they would’ve gotten ridden of Ann’s useless ass husband. He gave me a headache.

It worked for me because I like Ann's legs:lol::lol:

I love Threes Company and I love The Ropers. But I understand why the show did not work. The banter between the Ropers was hysterical on Threes Company. Each show they had a few minutes of banter or insults that were fall out of the chair funny. They were part of the spice that made Threes Company work. However, to build a full show around their funny banter would be hard. However, the creators of this show failed miserably.

The Ropers did not work. Stanley was no longer the apartment owner/manager who would barge into the kid's apartment and cause havoc. Helen was the anti-hero that saved the kids from Mr Roper.
Stanley and Helen needed something to do.

The hostility towards the neighbor got old after a few shows. On Threes Company the Ropers were the ones that interfered with the main actors of the show. On the Ropers, the neighbor just annoys Mr Roper. Not the same.

Helen was so sexually frustrated on Threes Company that it was part of the fun of the show. On the Ropers, she is not as sexually frustrated and her role was not really chasing Stanley anymore. Their arguments were over dumb stuff and Helen almost seemed less intelligent than from Threes Company.

By the time they introduced another character living with the Ropers, it was too late. But the character of Ginny did give Helen something to do.

How the show could have succeeded"
Gave Stanley a job around the townhouses
Made Ginny move in at the beginning
Helen just as sexually frustrated and kept the banter between them
ABC would air it directly after Threes Company
More cross over between shows. The kids should have visited and vice versa. Larry did visit on season one. But after the first episode, the kids were never really mentioned again.

Its hard to write a show about an older couple with no jobs and when you remove the banter from the show that made them famous. Even harder when you remove them from the power center of the building and have them barging in on the younger kids.


That's what ABC did with Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley so not sure why they couldnt do it with the Ropers

It worked for me because I like Ann's legs:lol::lol:
Ann was hot but the problem was her disgusting, annoying, creepy, useless ass husband.

Ann was hot but the problem was her disgusting, annoying, creepy, useless ass husband.

Didnt see the need for that kid either

Didnt see the need for that kid either
I didn’t have a problem with their kid it was Jeffrey.

I didn’t have a problem with their kid it was Jeffrey.


Since i discovered Three's company as a kid in syndication, once they got to the part of the series where the Ropers move I was always saying......"where is jack and the girls? Not realizing it was the pilot episode of the Ropers spinoff which I didnt find out until many years later

I love Threes Company and I love The Ropers. But I understand why the show did not work. The banter between the Ropers was hysterical on Threes Company. Each show they had a few minutes of banter or insults that were fall out of the chair funny. They were part of the spice that made Threes Company work. However, to build a full show around their funny banter would be hard. However, the creators of this show failed miserably.

The Ropers did not work. Stanley was no longer the apartment owner/manager who would barge into the kid's apartment and cause havoc. Helen was the anti-hero that saved the kids from Mr Roper.
Stanley and Helen needed something to do.

The hostility towards the neighbor got old after a few shows. On Threes Company the Ropers were the ones that interfered with the main actors of the show. On the Ropers, the neighbor just annoys Mr Roper. Not the same.

Helen was so sexually frustrated on Threes Company that it was part of the fun of the show. On the Ropers, she is not as sexually frustrated and her role was not really chasing Stanley anymore. Their arguments were over dumb stuff and Helen almost seemed less intelligent than from Threes Company.

By the time they introduced another character living with the Ropers, it was too late. But the character of Ginny did give Helen something to do.

How the show could have succeeded"
Gave Stanley a job around the townhouses
Made Ginny move in at the beginning
Helen just as sexually frustrated and kept the banter between them
ABC would air it directly after Threes Company
More cross over between shows. The kids should have visited and vice versa. Larry did visit on season one. But after the first episode, the kids were never really mentioned again.

Its hard to write a show about an older couple with no jobs and when you remove the banter from the show that made them famous. Even harder when you remove them from the power center of the building and have them barging in on the younger kids.

I think you're making good points. I considered this the original show about nothing. Fell and Lindley really got sandbagged, pushed off a smash hit series and placed into a series not ready for primetime. To add insult to injury it was necessary to tone down the back and forth between Helen and Stanley, what was funny with Jack, Janet and Chrissy in the room was not going to work with Stanley and Helen alone in a room. After all, they were all each other had.

The show was on late for a comedy series 10pm for the short season run, and then dumped on the Saturday night schedule leading off at 8pm up against the established top 25 hit series CHIPS. Fell wanted it written in his contract that the Ropers could return to the mother series if The Ropers failed but the producers wouldn't give it to him. As with Linda Lavin on Alice concerning the Flo character, you can be sure Ritter wanted no part of the Ropers back on Three's Company.

Since i discovered Three's company as a kid in syndication, once they got to the part of the series where the Ropers move I was always saying......"where is jack and the girls? Not realizing it was the pilot episode of the Ropers spinoff which I didnt find out until many years later
I thought that too and along with The Roper's second season premiere "The Party" which was added to TC's syndication run. It would have been nice for the DVD sets to have included these two Roper episodes as bonuses.

I thought that too and along with The Roper's second season premiere "The Party" which was added to TC's syndication run. It would have been nice for the DVD sets to have included these two Roper episodes as bonuses.

That's TC DVD is the worst release of all time

I think you're making good points. I considered this the original show about nothing. Fell and Lindley really got sandbagged, pushed off a smash hit series and placed into a series not ready for primetime. To add insult to injury it was necessary to tone down the back and forth between Helen and Stanley, what was funny with Jack, Janet and Chrissy in the room was not going to work with Stanley and Helen alone in a room. After all, they were all each other had.

The show was on late for a comedy series 10pm for the short season run, and then dumped on the Saturday night schedule leading off at 8pm up against the established top 25 hit series CHIPS. Fell wanted it written in his contract that the Ropers could return to the mother series if The Ropers failed but the producers wouldn't give it to him. As with Linda Lavin on Alice concerning the Flo character, you can be sure Ritter wanted no part of the Ropers back on Three's Company.
Why would you think Ritter would not want the Ropers back? The surviving cast who worked with both landlords are often asked....who was better? They can never decide because they were so fond of both. I read that Ritter was really fond of Fell.

Fell changed Stanely from what was in mind of the creators. Stanley was originally just a clumsy, dumb and introverted guy. Fell took the character way out of what was originally intended and it worked brilliantly.

I think you're making good points. I considered this the original show about nothing. Fell and Lindley really got sandbagged, pushed off a smash hit series and placed into a series not ready for primetime. To add insult to injury it was necessary to tone down the back and forth between Helen and Stanley, what was funny with Jack, Janet and Chrissy in the room was not going to work with Stanley and Helen alone in a room. After all, they were all each other had.

The show was on late for a comedy series 10pm for the short season run, and then dumped on the Saturday night schedule leading off at 8pm up against the established top 25 hit series CHIPS. Fell wanted it written in his contract that the Ropers could return to the mother series if The Ropers failed but the producers wouldn't give it to him. As with Linda Lavin on Alice concerning the Flo character, you can be sure Ritter wanted no part of the Ropers back on Three's Company.
Why would you think Ritter would not want the Ropers back? The surviving cast who worked with both landlords are often asked....who was better? They can never decide because they were so fond of both. I read that Ritter was really fond of Fell.

Fell changed Stanely from what was in mind of the creators. Stanley was originally just a clumsy, dumb and introverted guy. Fell took the character way out of what was originally intended and it worked brilliantly.

Why would you think Ritter would not want the Ropers back? The surviving cast who worked with both landlords are often asked....who was better? They can never decide because they were so fond of both. I read that Ritter was really fond of Fell.

Fell changed Stanely from what was in mind of the creators. Stanley was originally just a clumsy, dumb and introverted guy. Fell took the character way out of what was originally intended and it worked brilliantly.

I agree with you 100%, Fell and Lindley were both brilliant in their roles, that was the problem. Ritter saw Three's Company as his starring vehicle the other cast members were there to service his character. The Ropers series was just not ready, it was rushed out the door, placed in a ridiculous time slot and then shifted to a day and time where the chances for success were almost zero.

Why would you think Ritter would not want the Ropers back? The surviving cast who worked with both landlords are often asked....who was better? They can never decide because they were so fond of both. I read that Ritter was really fond of Fell.

Fell changed Stanely from what was in mind of the creators. Stanley was originally just a clumsy, dumb and introverted guy. Fell took the character way out of what was originally intended and it worked brilliantly.

They should have been smart enough to see the big picture, that they was being phased out. That's like me or you being told that we are being transferred to another dept while they give someone else our desk inside the office. That would make it clear that it is no coming back lol


Also how was they going to comeback if someone was already living in their old apt? So they should have known that they wasnt coming back

Very simply, the Ropers were funny one joke characters for 5 minutes a week but weren't interesting or funny enough to build a show around.

Very simply, the Ropers were funny one joke characters for 5 minutes a week but weren't interesting or funny enough to build a show around.
Exactly. They were hysterical for their banter. But just like a great piece of cake for dessert, you cant build a full meal just on the dessert.

Paul Lynde is another spice character. People loved his jokes on Squares and he was funny on Bewitched as a character. When they tried to build a full show around such a character it failed.

Nothing against them personally. A great spice makes a great meal. But you simply cant eat the spice and expect it to be as good as the full meal.

Welcome. I actually liked The Ropers and I think the reason it didn’t work was because of Ann’s husband’s persona and the useless addition of Jenny. I’ll take it any day over Three’s A Crowd though.

I like The Ropers, but I like Three's A Crowd better.

I like The Ropers, but I like Three's A Crowd better.

you like everything

I think The Ropers would have had at least 4 seasons if

The show aired right after Three’s Company
Stanley had a job
There were more jokes about Mrs. Roper’s sexual frustration
Mr. and Mrs. Roper adopted an unruly teenager
The writers made Stanley and Jeffrey friends

I think The Ropers would have had at least 4 seasons if

The show aired right after Three’s Company
Stanley had a job
There were more jokes about Mrs. Roper’s sexual frustration
Mr. and Mrs. Roper adopted an unruly teenager
The writers made Stanley and Jeffrey friends


The key was following Gary marshall plan and having his shows back to back. That didnt happened with Flo, Ropers, or Fish.

Welcome. I actually liked The Ropers and I think the reason it didn’t work was because of Ann’s husband’s persona and the useless addition of Jenny. I’ll take it any day over Three’s A Crowd though.Nothing is better than 3rees company though!!

The show did work. It was too ahead of its time, IMO. It was making fun of Yuppies before they became a thing, and it had a lot of underdog/class humor at a time when lead characters were supposed to be winners. It was basically Married with Children, except MWC succeeded because by the time it aired, everyone hated Yuppies and were comfortable with having a lovable loser to root for.

The show did work. It was too ahead of its time. It was making fun of Yuppies before anyone knew what they were, and a lot of underdog/class humor at a time when lead characters were supposed to be winners. It was basically Married with Children, except MWC succeeded because by then, everyone hated Yuppies and were comfortable with having a lovable loser to root for.

How did it work? it couldnt grab an audience

Not my ideas, but I think the producers are to blame.

1- Cheap and limited sets. Like TC, the producers quickly realized that a good show didn't require a variety of sets/locations. I think this made the show very boring. Let's see the Ropers and neighbor's apartment and a hot tub/jacuzzi.

2- Like TC, they had limited visitors and almost zero guest stars.

As others have stated, the Ropers worked best when interacting with younger people.

Not my ideas, but I think the producers are to blame.

1- Cheap and limited sets. Like TC, the producers quickly realized that a good show didn't require a variety of sets/locations. I think this made the show very boring. Let's see the Ropers and neighbor's apartment and a hot tub/jacuzzi.

2- Like TC, they had limited visitors and almost zero guest stars.

As others have stated, the Ropers worked best when interacting with younger people.

That I agree with, I had no interest in seeing Mrs Roper mother:lol:

I think The Ropers would have had at least 4 seasons if

The show aired right after Three’s Company
Stanley had a job
There were more jokes about Mrs. Roper’s sexual frustration
Mr. and Mrs. Roper adopted an unruly teenager
The writers made Stanley and Jeffrey friends
Adding on to my post above, I think the fact that The Ropers did not air after Three’s Company was the main reason the show did not last long. People back then were not going to choose watching Stanley and Helen sit around their house all day over CHiPs. Which brings me to my next point…

Like BestTVever said in this thread and other threads, Stanley and Helen sitting around the house all day was not interesting to watch. Who wants to see two 55 year olds do absolutely nothing for half an hour? If Mr. Roper had a job, then it would have given the writers the opportunity to start off most of the episodes with him coming home from work and going back and forth with Mrs. Roper.

I also agree with BestTVever that the writers should have written more jokes about Mrs. Roper’s sexual frustration. The sexual frustration stuff was funny to watch on Three’s Company, I’m not sure why they didn’t include it in the scripts as much on The Ropers.

Instead of the episode “Baby Talk” being about Mr. Roper giving his wife a puppy, I think it should have been about The Ropers adopting an unruly teenage girl. Could you imagine all the storylines they could have done about the girl misbehaving and stressing The Ropers out? I would have gladly taken that over what we got.

After Season 1, Mr. Roper and Jeffrey feuding got old and Jeffrey became increasingly annoying. The second or third episode of Season 2 should have been about the two calling a truce and from that episode on, we would see them gradually become friends like George Jefferson and Tom Willis on The Jeffersons did. I understand that Mr. Roper feuded with the neighbor in the original British series, but the writers should have taken into consideration that British audiences are not the same as American audiences and that they were going to have to change some things up for the US version.

Adding on to my post above, I think the fact that The Ropers did not air after Three’s Company was the main reason the show did not last long. People back then were not going to choose watching Stanley and Helen sit around their house all day over CHiPs. Which brings me to my next point…

Like BestTVever said in this thread and other threads, Stanley and Helen sitting around the house all day was not interesting to watch. Who wants to see two 55 year olds do absolutely nothing for half an hour? If Mr. Roper had a job, then it would have given the writers the opportunity to start off most of the episodes with him coming home from work and going back and forth with Mrs. Roper.

I also agree with BestTVever that the writers should have written more jokes about Mrs. Roper’s sexual frustration. The sexual frustration stuff was funny to watch on Three’s Company, I’m not sure why they didn’t include it in the scripts as much on The Ropers.

Instead of the episode “Baby Talk” being about Mr. Roper giving his wife a puppy, I think it should have been about The Ropers adopting an unruly teenage girl. Could you imagine all the storylines they could have done about the girl misbehaving and stressing The Ropers out? I would have gladly taken that over what we got.

After Season 1, Mr. Roper and Jeffrey feuding got old and Jeffrey became increasingly annoying. The second or third episode of Season 2 should have been about the two calling a truce and from that episode on, we would see them gradually become friends like George Jefferson and Tom Willis on The Jeffersons did. I understand that Mr. Roper feuded with the neighbor in the original British series, but the writers should have taken into consideration that British audiences are not the same as American audiences and that they were going to have to change some things up for the US version.



I dont think airing after TC would have helped much because the TRIO appeared on the show as guests and the show still finished #37 for the week. And thats with Jack and the girls lol

I dont think airing after TC would have helped much because the TRIO appeared on the show as guests and the show still finished #37 for the week. And thats with Jack and the girls lol
That’s probably because the timeslot sucked. :lol: No one was worried about Season 4 Jack, Janet, and Chrissy visiting The Ropers’ house when there were better shows to be watching.

That’s probably because the timeslot sucked. :lol: No one was worried about Season 4 Jack, Janet, and Chrissy visiting The Ropers’ house when there were better shows to be watching.

Could be but I would think so TC fans would follow the trio over to the ropers. lol I am going to see if there was a ABC promo about Trio appearing on the ropers

The first episode of season 2 is probably the best episode of the Ropers. ABC pumped Threes Company magic into the first episode but I agree the timeslot hurt the show. However I dont buy Fell's conspiracy theory that ABC did this to purposely kill the show. I think it showed ABC's belief the show could carry itself and the Threes Company limelight was enough.
However even if The Ropers immediately followed Threes Company the show would have still eventually failed. The Ropers had a show without a purpose. On Threes Company they had a purpose. Stanely would be the intrusive landlord making life difficult for the kids while Helen had their back. When they moved out, Stanley had no job and Helen was no longer sexually frustrated either. Stanley's annoying neighbor was not enough to carry the show. This happens frequently on hugely popular sitcoms. The network wants to create spin offs and take characters off the show. But that is risky and most times does not work.

The first episode of season 2 is probably the best episode of the Ropers. ABC pumped Threes Company magic into the first episode but I agree the timeslot hurt the show. However I dont buy Fell's conspiracy theory that ABC did this to purposely kill the show. I think it showed ABC's belief the show could carry itself and the Threes Company limelight was enough.
However even if The Ropers immediately followed Threes Company the show would have still eventually failed. The Ropers had a show without a purpose. On Threes Company they had a purpose. Stanely would be the intrusive landlord making life difficult for the kids while Helen had their back. When they moved out, Stanley had no job and Helen was no longer sexually frustrated either. Stanley's annoying neighbor was not enough to carry the show. This happens frequently on hugely popular sitcoms. The network wants to create spin offs and take characters off the show. But that is risky and most times does not work.

The audience for TC was 11-29 and that is the main reason the ropers failed. No teenager or preteen wanted to see a show centered around Helen and stanley

The first episode of season 2 is probably the best episode of the Ropers. ABC pumped Threes Company magic into the first episode but I agree the timeslot hurt the show. However I dont buy Fell's conspiracy theory that ABC did this to purposely kill the show. I think it showed ABC's belief the show could carry itself and the Threes Company limelight was enough.
However even if The Ropers immediately followed Threes Company the show would have still eventually failed. The Ropers had a show without a purpose. On Threes Company they had a purpose. Stanely would be the intrusive landlord making life difficult for the kids while Helen had their back. When they moved out, Stanley had no job and Helen was no longer sexually frustrated either. Stanley's annoying neighbor was not enough to carry the show. This happens frequently on hugely popular sitcoms. The network wants to create spin offs and take characters off the show. But that is risky and most times does not work.
Eh, I’m sure The Ropers would have lasted 4 or 5 seasons if it aired after Three’s Company. The funny thing is that The Ropers was based on a sitcom from England named George and Mildred and that show was even more popular than Man About the House (the British version of Three’s Company) from what I hear. I guess George and Mildred was more relevant in England compared to The Ropers in the US.

Eh, I’m sure The Ropers would have lasted 4 or 5 seasons if it aired after Three’s Company. The funny thing is that The Ropers was based on a sitcom from England named George and Mildred and that show was even more popular than Man About the House (the British version of Three’s Company) from what I hear. I guess George and Mildred was more relevant in England compared to The Ropers in the US.

I dont think so. A bunch of 12 to 18 years olds who just finished watching TC wasnt going to watch 30 mins of the ropers

Somebody recently argued (https://www.reddit.com/r/threescompany/comments/1pjp17e/comment/ntfyfx0/) that The Ropers tried to use the same formula as its parent show, Three's Company and it just didn't work. Three's Company was originally an adult show that softened the edges around enough to make it somewhat suitable entertainment for the whole family. Unlike on The Ropers, it was more organic and less forced on Three's Company.

On Three's Company, the chemistry of the writing and cast was the background to the zany plots, twists and turns. However on The Ropers, it was front and center and the main feature despite being less organic like I said, and more scripted feeling.