https://jpfmovies.com/2011/12/07/part-3-of-3-the-ropers-the-one-that-should-be-lost-and-forgotten/

Three’s Company was so popular (https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/threads/the-ropers-and-threes-a-crowd.368215/) that ABC tried to spin-off (http://www.poobala.com/ropersandthrees.html) a show called The Ropers (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/TheRopers). The Ropers were the original landlords in show Three’s is Company, Stanley (Norman Fell) and Helen (Audra Lindley (https://h-o-m-e.org/mrs-roper-threes-company/)). In the spin off, the Ropers sold the building, bought a condo and a show of their own (https://www.nytimes.com/1979/03/13/archives/tv-the-ropers-arrive.html). The “plot” of The Ropers (https://web.archive.org/web/20061031121134/http://www.jumptheshark.com/r/ropers.htm), was that they now lived (http://thelandofwhatever.blogspot.com/2015/07/moron-tv-ropers-1979.html) in a condo (https://www.iamnotastalker.com/2016/09/28/royal-dale-townhouses-from-the-ropers/) in an upscale area but looked down upon their new next door neighbor Jeffrey P. Brookes III, (Jeffrey Tambor). His wife Anne, however, was actually good friends with Mrs. Roper. The humor was theoretically to come out of the friction between Jeffrey not liking the Ropers, Jeffrey’s wife not liking that he didn’t like the Ropers and of course Mrs. Roper still not liking (https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/threes-company-did-the-ropers-love-each-other.220278/) that Mr. Roper didn’t want to fool around. Oh what a hoot that should have been.

Nevertheless, (thank god) the audience didn’t see the humor (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1979/03/13/romping-with-the-ropers/6f16fa49-3333-4778-b42b-6ab6db64df58/) and the show (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078679/) quickly was cancelled. The fact that The Ropers (https://jacksonupperco.com/2015/06/24/why-did-i-spend-14-hours-of-my-life-watching-the-ropers/) was canceled quickly did re-affirm my faith in humanity. But The Ropers represents something that all those in TV can learn from, don’t take great supporting players and try to make them great central starring characters in another show it all too often fails miserably. The real problem facing Norman Fell (who was a known star in his own right) was that the characters could not go back to Three’s Company since Don Knotts (the comedy legend) playing Mr. Furley had taken their place.

Just how did this joke of a show get made especially with someone as well-known as Norman Fell being involved? With Three's Company's 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ropers) was canceled, Fell approached Three’s Company producers about returning to the show. The Ropers had been replaced (https://forums.primetimer.com/topic/8432-the-ropers-or-furley-you-choose/) 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.

At least the networks might have learned something from this debacle. Now when a show tries to spin-off a character, they set the stage to avoid just such a problem. When The Jefferson’s spun off the character of Florence into her own show she was replaced not with a big name star but with a character who, should the spin-off fail (which it did), could quickly be dropped so that Florence could return to the original show.

To give you an idea of how bad it was, the show was ranked number two on Time magazine’s “Top 10 Worst TV Spin-Offs (https://entertainment.time.com/2008/10/01/top-10-worst-tv-spin-offs/slide/the-ropers-1979-80/)” and in the July 2002 TV Guide named The Ropers the 49th worst TV series of all time.

Ouch—but well deserved rankings.

This is the one show of the three we looked at that needs to be lost and forgotten.

I disagree. Look at how he's insulting fans of the show:

"Nevertheless, (thank god) the audience didn’t see the humor and the show quickly was cancelled. The fact that the Ropers was canceled quickly did re-affirm my faith in humanity."

Such tripe. It was a very funny show and the "humanity" that likes it needs no one-sided and unfair commentary from him. In a competitive TV market, it's wrong to make an assumption that people "didn't see the humor." I was alive then and DID see it. JPF likely was not, he just wants to tear down something from before his time. Not liking something is no reason to insult those who did find it worthwhile. I'll wait for JPF and his condescending superior intellect to create a series that "thank god" will be the example of great sitcoms.

JPF also loses credibility by calling Suzanne Somers "Susan Summers" in the Comments section. Does this guy actually know ANYTHING about '70s shows and superstars that were on them? Actually has both her first & last names wrong...! And years after his original commentary!

This stuff was from 11 years ago -- please don't dredge up that idiot's commentaries. My blood pressure can't take any more increases!

It failed because ABC moved it to Saturday nights opposite CHIPS. If they would have kept it on Tuesdays it might have had a long run.

The Ropers was a victim of a change in schedule. It performed great at first, but when the time was changed it flopped. Also, you’re right about the Brookes. The show did make the Ropers secondary characters to them. The Brookes were awful and should have been written out

Fell (especially) and Lindley were voted off the island, and it's pretty clear who the main culprit behind that was, John Ritter. Stars usually get their way and Three's Company was a huge smash and the producers rightly or wrongly felt John was the key reason for the success. John wanted the spotlight on his character, every change on the series benefited John at the expense of everyone else, so it was hasta la vista to the Ropers.

The first sign these actors were being sandbagged was the scheduling of the spin-off at 10pm, how many sitcoms in TV history have been scheduled that late, and the few that have failed. So the show was placed in a timeslot it was not going to stay in, a timeslot used for dramas and in the past variety shows and news programming. The series also had no proper set-up, what's the premise, a retired middle-aged childless couple living in a condo. Big deal, what are you going to do with that. What's worse, the snappy repartee between the two of them which was their trademark working so well on Three's Company was going to have to be seriously toned down. Now alone without Jack, Janet and Chrissy around, all they had was each other, the Ropers were going to have to sound different.

If the network had any commitment to the show or believed in the show at all it would never have been moved to Saturday night. Fell knew this, in fact he flew across the country to meet with the ABC executives in New York and begged them not to do it. Not only was the series moved as far as possible from the mother series, but Saturday night had much older demographics. Three's Company was a series with young demographics, so the people most familiar with these characters in the first place were the people least likely to be watching television on Saturday night. So here's The Ropers up against the hit series CHIPS, on a night where the average viewer was someone who probably never heard of these characters.

The gateway to returning to Three's Company was slammed shut with the signing of Don Knotts, Fell and Lindley were not returning the network and the producers were going to make sure of that.

I don’t believe that John wanted the Ropers off the show. It was a business decision, they could make more money off two shows than one.

Ya but it ended up hurting them......

Why would Johnny not like them??

With the way Ritter stabbed DeWitt in the back when TC ended, it’s hard to believe that he wouldn’t have someone fired.

I don’t believe that John wanted the Ropers off the show. It was a business decision, they could make more money off two shows than one.
I know. I dont know how that conspiracy around here started. All the dirt, gossip, and drama on all the behind the scenes of Threes Company this was never ever alluded to.
John Ritter said on a late night show in 1997 that Helen his favorite when asked if he preferred Roper or Furley. ABC had a HUGE hit on their hands and was going to milk it for all its worth. The documentary of Threes Company had the network discussing the spin off during early season 2 when Threes Company was the #1 show. The formula worked and Ritter had great chemistry with the Ropers. Why would anyone want to tinker with that success?

I know. I dont know how that conspiracy around here started. All the dirt, gossip, and drama on all the behind the scenes of Threes Company this was never ever alluded to.
John Ritter said on a late night show in 1997 that Helen his favorite when asked if he preferred Roper or Furley. ABC had a HUGE hit on their hands and was going to milk it for all its worth. The documentary of Threes Company had the network discussing the spin off during early season 2 when Threes Company was the #1 show. The formula worked and Ritter had great chemistry with the Ropers. Why would anyone want to tinker with that success?

There is no conspiracy theory, John wanted the series centered around his character, he was the star of the series, and stars more often than not get what they want. The network wanted The Ropers to succeed, so did the production company, no one wanted the show to fail, I'm sure John didn't want that, he just wanted those characters off his show, it's that simple. The network wants all their shows to succeed but they know that's not going to happen, and we know based on the scheduling strategies implemented by ABC with respect to The Ropers what odds ABC was giving the series. With respect to the production company, and this is very public, they would not agree to a contract stipulation that Fell wanted concerning returning to the series in the event The Ropers failed, and they hired Don Knotts as reliable a second banana as there was in the business to make it clear the door was slammed shut as far as The Ropers returning. I loved Stanley and Helen, they were great characters, added a lot to the mother series, but that series could have gone into the 79-80 season without immediately filling the landlord position until a final determination on The Ropers was made.

There is no conspiracy theory, John wanted the series centered around his character, he was the star of the series, and stars more often than not get what they want. The network wanted The Ropers to succeed, so did the production company, no one wanted the show to fail, I'm sure John didn't want that, he just wanted those characters off his show, it's that simple. The network wants all their shows to succeed but they know that's not going to happen, and we know based on the scheduling strategies implemented by ABC with respect to The Ropers what odds ABC was giving the series. With respect to the production company, and this is very public, they would not agree to a contract stipulation that Fell wanted concerning returning to the series in the event The Ropers failed, and they hired Don Knotts as reliable a second banana as there was in the business to make it clear the door was slammed shut as far as The Ropers returning. I loved Stanley and Helen, they were great characters, added a lot to the mother series, but that series could have gone into the 79-80 season without immediately filling the landlord position until a final determination on The Ropers was made.
Provide one source for your allegation. That is your opinion. Its a fact that ABC wanted an immediate spin off after the first season in 1977. The Ropers balked. ABC kept pestering them until they agreed in the third season of Threes Company.

After the enormous success of Three's Company in its short first season in 1977, ABC head Fred Silverman was anxious to capitalize on the show's success. In early 1977, Silverman approached Fell and Lindley with the subject of doing a spin-off from the show after its first full season wrapped in the spring of 1978. Both actors as well as the Three's Company producers backed off as the show had yet to prove itself for an entire season. With the show's continued success in its second season, however, the idea was brought up again in 1978, this time by Three's Company's own producers as well as new ABC head Tony Thomopolous (Silverman had gone to NBC).

You see, the show had not even proven itself to last a full season and ABC executives were offering Fell and Lindley a spin off. That is factual and in all the books and documentaries about the show. It completely disproves your personal allegation that Ritter wanted the Ropers gone. The Ropers never stole Ritter's thunder but actually accelerated his status on the show. Yes, ABC built the show around Ritter but you are making false assumptions and inserting your personal beliefs into that fact.