……..how she and Fell were tricked into the Roper’s and the show being treated like garbage? Fell was pretty vocal for years, but I don’t think I ever heard Lindley say one thing about it. Did I miss anything?

True. Perhaps it meant more to Fell than Lindley.

Wasn't she first diagnosed with leukemia in the 1980s?

If she wasn't feeling well then she probably had more personal battles than not being allowed to return to TC. I think Fell's TV career had peaked so he could be more open even bitter about it.

I think Audra was wiser and she was able to land a recurring on Cybill before she tragically succumbed to another bout of leukemia.

I think TV is a very tough industry to work because there are no guarantees that you can successfully work in it year after year. One year you can be in demand and the next year you're a has been.

Well, she was supposed to do “Three Apartments” if it went through and that was in the later 1980’s.

……..how she and Fell were tricked into the Roper’s and the show being treated like garbage? Fell was pretty vocal for years, but I don’t think I ever heard Lindley say one thing about it. Did I miss anything?
They were not tricked. No one forced them to do it. Audra was the one that convinced Fell to do it. A spin off was talked about during season 2 but the Ropers turned it down. When the show was still at the top ABC came again and made a sweet deal for them. In the early days John was making $50k per episode and the girls $30k per episode. By season 4 John was making 150K per episode. The Ropers on TC were making $20k per episode. For their own show they made much more. Fell was never thrilled about the spin off because he knew it was a risk. However at the end of the day he signed the contract and was paid for the work he did. If they stayed on TC for the duration they would have made more money in the long run. But being the stars of their own show had them making big bucks.

Audra Lindley also played Phoebe's grandmother in "Friends". She appeared in one episode in 1995.

Audra Lindley also played Phoebe's grandmother in "Friends". I think she did at least 2 episodes in the mid 90's.

She also played the sort-of villainous role of Liz Matthews on Another World for most of the 1960s.

She was in a Barnaby Jones episode right before Threes Company.
She was in 5 Love Boat episodes (including the 2 part Love Boat movie pilot premiere in 1977).
She was also in the 1989 movie Troop Beverly Hills.

They were not tricked. No one forced them to do it. Audra was the one that convinced Fell to do it. A spin off was talked about during season 2 but the Ropers turned it down. When the show was still at the top ABC came again and made a sweet deal for them. In the early days John was making $50k per episode and the girls $30k per episode. By season 4 John was making 150K per episode. The Ropers on TC were making $20k per episode. For their own show they made much more. Fell was never thrilled about the spin off because he knew it was a risk. However at the end of the day he signed the contract and was paid for the work he did. If they stayed on TC for the duration they would have made more money in the long run. But being the stars of their own show had them making big bucks.

They were tricked because 1 season to most people means 6 or 7 months and that's what they thought the producers meant when they said it. So it was a tricky way of getting them off the show

They were tricked because 1 season to most people means 6 or 7 months and that's what they thought the producers meant when they said it. So it was a tricky way of getting them off the show
We will have to agree to disagree. I dont see how there was any trickery involved. It was 2 seasons. Threes Company started the same way as the Ropers. It started in the spring/summer for 8 or so episodes. If its copying or duplicating the original show with its debut then how could that be a trick. Norman had a right to refuse to do the Ropers. He could have put it in the contract if the Roper's fail at any point he could come back. He thought a 2 season run would be good. He made some great money but saying they were tricked is pure rubbish.

We will have to agree to disagree. I dont see how there was any trickery involved. It was 2 seasons. Threes Company started the same way as the Ropers. It started in the spring/summer for 8 or so episodes. If its copying or duplicating the original show with its debut then how could that be a trick. Norman had a right to refuse to do the Ropers. He could have put it in the contract if the Roper's fail at any point he could come back. He thought a 2 season run would be good. He made some great money but saying they were tricked is pure rubbish.

It was their fault for not getting clarification lol Also they should have known since it was a new landlord it was no point in asking to come back because it was someone living in their own apt

It was their fault for not getting clarification lol Also they should have known since it was a new landlord it was no point in asking to come back because it was someone living in their own apt
The supposed story was Fell wanted to come back to Threes Company if The Ropers failed. The network offered a deal that if the show was not picked up after the first season that Fell could come back. But Fell thought he was being extra clever and said not 1 season but 2 seasons. His allegation was that ABC purposely did a second season so he would not have to go back. I don't find that credible because The Ropers had very good and strong ratings the first season. There would be no reason that ABC would not renew a hit show. When the ratings tanked and the show was cancelled he was upset. I think ABC moving the show around to Saturday nights was the issue. If they aired it right after Threes Company I think The Ropers could have lasted 3 seasons. Fell's contract and conditions were met. I wonder if Don Knots had something in his contract that discussed the Ropers.

The supposed story was Fell wanted to come back to Threes Company if The Ropers failed. The network offered a deal that if the show was not picked up after the first season that Fell could come back. But Fell thought he was being extra clever and said not 1 season but 2 seasons. His allegation was that ABC purposely did a second season so he would not have to go back. I don't find that credible because The Ropers had very good and strong ratings the first season. There would be no reason that ABC would not renew a hit show. When the ratings tanked and the show was cancelled he was upset. I think ABC moving the show around to Saturday nights was the issue. If they aired it right after Threes Company I think The Ropers could have lasted 3 seasons. Fell's contract and conditions were met. I wonder if Don Knots had something in his contract that discussed the Ropers.


But what was they going to come back to? Mr. Furley was already established once Ropers 2nd season ended

Though I think they were kinda tricked, both of them should have known that coming back would be impossible. Where would they have fit in? Dell said they were offered a spinoff during the second season and he said know. I think Lindley pushed him. Let’s face it, though, the writing on the proverbial wall and show was really bad.

I am confused by the word "tricked." How is a TV network offering you your own show for big bucks being tricked? Threes Company was the top show of the network. It was a huge risk to let them go. Why mess with the chemistry of the show? But the show was SO popular that its limelight made The Ropers a big success for the first season. It was not until the second season and the constant changing of time slots that killed the show. But I think Fell had enough common sense that the appeal of the Ropers on Threes Company probably could not support its own show. I wish they would have never left. I prefer the Ropers mostly for the banter between the two of them. While Don Knots was a fantastic addition he was the landlord to laugh at. The Ropers gave more depth to the scripts because The Ropers were the good/bad guy with the kids.

He couldn’t have been that mad though because they both came back for a guest appearance toward the end of the fifth season of Three’s Company which would have been about a year after The Ropers ended.

I am confused by the word "tricked." How is a TV network offering you your own show for big bucks being tricked? Threes Company was the top show of the network. It was a huge risk to let them go. Why mess with the chemistry of the show? But the show was SO popular that its limelight made The Ropers a big success for the first season. It was not until the second season and the constant changing of time slots that killed the show. But I think Fell had enough common sense that the appeal of the Ropers on Threes Company probably could not support its own show. I wish they would have never left. I prefer the Ropers mostly for the banter between the two of them. While Don Knots was a fantastic addition he was the landlord to laugh at. The Ropers gave more depth to the scripts because The Ropers were the good/bad guy with the kids.

It was a tricky way to get them off the show for good.

It was a tricky way to get them off the show for good.

The producers loved The Ropers characters, that's why they brought them back to visit and was going to give them another show "Three Apartments".

The network picks what night on the schedule the show airs. If the network would have left The Ropers to air after Three's Company, it would have lasted longer.

I think the network screwed The Ropers by moving the show to Saturday nights.

He couldn’t have been that mad though because they both came back for a guest appearance toward the end of the fifth season of Three’s Company which would have been about a year after The Ropers ended.

and I always wanted to know why they got them to make a guest appearance after denying them the opportunity to come back to show full-time. It was never discussed on the true hollywood story which was dumb

The producers loved The Ropers characters, that's why they brought them back to visit and was going to give them another show "Three Apartments".

The network picks what night on the schedule the show airs. If the network would have left The Ropers to air after Three's Company, it would have lasted longer.

I think the network screwed The Ropers by moving the show to Saturday nights.

ABC never even tried to air the show right after TC

ABC never even tried to air the show right after TC

Exactly! It seems like a no brainer to air it after Three's Company where you know the fans will be watching.

First they moved it to Sunday nights and then to Saturday nights. It's like the network didn't care about the show.

Exactly! It seems like a no brainer to air it after Three's Company where you know the fans will be watching.

First they moved it to Sunday nights and then to Saturday nights. It's like the network didn't care about the show.

It only aired after TC one time, March 13, 1979 which was the 1st episode. After that, it aired after Taxi for remainder of season 1

It only aired after TC one time, March 13, 1979 which was the 1st episode. After that, it aired after Taxi for remainder of season 1

Exactly! It premiered to huge numbers on Tuesday nights and it should have stayed on Tuesday nights.

Exactly! It premiered to huge numbers on Tuesday nights and it should have stayed on Tuesday nights.

Thats what ABC did with Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley

Thats what ABC did with Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley

Yes! That's an excellent example.

It was a tricky way to get them off the show for good.
That makes no sense and defeats the entire reason for spin offs. Why would ABC try and kill their own show and remove characters to get them off the show. The reason is because they thought they could also make the network rich by having another hit show. And ABC was right the first season.
I think its a lame premise to suggest ABC wanted them off the show for any other reason other than milking the Threes Company limelight and creating another hit show.

That makes no sense and defeats the entire reason for spin offs. Why would ABC try and kill their own show and remove characters to get them off the show. The reason is because they thought they could also make the network rich by having another hit show. And ABC was right the first season.
I think its a lame premise to suggest ABC wanted them off the show for any other reason other than milking the Threes Company limelight and creating another hit show.

I remember on the THS that the producer said they was looking for someone like Don Knotts for the new landlord. Saying that they were looking to move on from a Stanley type of Landlord.

And what if TC had ended right after The Ropers premiered?

What if John had decided it was time for him to move on?

The Ropers departure from TC allowed the writers to explore new storylines with the swinging Mr. Furley. It has been stated that writers have an easier time making plots about singles than married couples.

My point is that the show could have written the Ropers off the show at anytime for any reason. Everyone is replaceable (successfully or not).

And what if TC had ended right after The Ropers premiered?

What if John had decided it was time for him to move on?

The Ropers departure from TC allowed the writers to explore new storylines with the swinging Mr. Furley. It has been stated that writers have an easier time making plots about singles than married couples.

My point is that the show could have written the Ropers off the show at anytime for any reason. Everyone is replaceable (successfully or not).
I disagree
The banter between the Ropers was hysterical. Having 2 of them made their interaction with the kids easier. Mrs Roper always sided with the kids. We laughed with the Ropers. We laughed at Mr Furley. I found the scripts around Furley were lame. His zany behavior grew old after awhile.

And what if TC had ended right after The Ropers premiered?

What if John had decided it was time for him to move on?

The Ropers departure from TC allowed the writers to explore new storylines with the swinging Mr. Furley. It has been stated that writers have an easier time making plots about singles than married couples.

My point is that the show could have written the Ropers off the show at anytime for any reason. Everyone is replaceable (successfully or not).

Large portion of the TC fanbase wasnt a fan of the Roper because they were older. Now that I am older I get the humor of the Ropers but when I was 11 and 12 I didnt and thats probably why so many TC fans didnt watch the Ropers.

Lindley wasn't in the same position as Fell, she had become a primetime star in the 1970's, she was 60 years of age, and in the process of getting a divorce. She wasn't going to take a chance of making enemies (in show business that's real easy to do) by opening her mouth.

ABC had a huge hit on their hands with Three's Company, they also had a star (John Ritter) with a huge ego who wanted the comedy of the series to originate from his character, so Lindley and in particular Fell had to go.

Of course the network didn't want The Ropers to fail, but like everything else in life and business an assessment has to be made as to the likelihood of something paying off. The network clearly had no faith in the series, first it scheduled it at a time of night when sitcoms were not scheduled, 10pm. Then ABC moves the show to 8pm on Saturday against an established hit. The mother series had younger demos, The Ropers were moved to Saturday night which had the oldest viewer demos of any night of the week. In other words, the very people most familiar with the characters were the people least likely to be watching TV when the show was scheduled. Fell knew the score, he flew to New York on his own dime to meet with the ABC executives but to no avail.

Lindley wasn't in the same position as Fell, she had become a primetime star in the 1970's, she was 60 years of age, and in the process of getting a divorce. She wasn't going to take a chance of making enemies (in show business that's real easy to do) by opening her mouth.

ABC had a huge hit on their hands with Three's Company, they also had a star (John Ritter) with a huge ego who wanted the comedy of the series to originate from his character, so Lindley and in particular Fell had to go.

Of course the network didn't want The Ropers to fail, but like everything else in life and business an assessment has to be made as to the likelihood of something paying off. The network clearly had no faith in the series, first it scheduled it at a time of night when sitcoms were not scheduled, 10pm. Then ABC moves the show to 8pm on Saturday against an established hit. The mother series had younger demos, The Ropers were moved to Saturday night which had the oldest viewer demos of any night of the week. In other words, the very people most familiar with the characters were the people least likely to be watching TV when the show was scheduled. Fell knew the score, he flew to New York on his own dime to meet with the ABC executives but to no avail.


I dont think it had anything to do with Saturday Night, the show was just boring. For example, why would I have any interest in seeing Mrs Roper MOTHER?:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I dont think it had anything to do with Saturday Night, the show was just boring. For example, why would I have any interest in seeing Mrs Roper MOTHER?:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
People didn't watch the Ropers because it was a dumb show. The Ropers changed. Stanley was no longer the foil for the kids. Helen was no longer an anti-hero for the kids. The sexual frustration from Helen was gone. Stanely had no job. Both of them had no purpose. They tried making the neighbor Stanley's nemesis. However Stanley was much better assuming that role. Their banter and hysterical jokes on each other were gone. The show morphed into a typical dumb sitcom. They were much better on Threes Company.

I dont think it had anything to do with Saturday Night, the show was just boring. For example, why would I have any interest in seeing Mrs Roper MOTHER?:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I think you're missing my point, ABC first placed the show on Tuesday night at 10 pm and then Saturday at 8pm because there assessment of the show and the likelihood of the show succeeding were not high. A spinoff from a monster hit series would normally have received the royal treatment, the fact that it didn't spoke volumes.

I think you're missing my point, ABC first placed the show on Tuesday night at 10 pm and then Saturday at 8pm because there assessment of the show and the likelihood of the show succeeding were not high. A spinoff from a monster hit series would normally have received the royal treatment, the fact that it didn't spoke volumes.

Honestly, if the show followed TC I think it still would have bombed. Just wasnt much you could do with those two characters for an entire show. Taking the Ropers off TC and giving them a show would be like removing the Willises off the Jeffersons:lol:

People didn't watch the Ropers because it was a dumb show. The Ropers changed. Stanley was no longer the foil for the kids. Helen was no longer an anti-hero for the kids. The sexual frustration from Helen was gone. Stanely had no job. Both of them had no purpose. They tried making the neighbor Stanley's nemesis. However Stanley was much better assuming that role. Their banter and hysterical jokes on each other were gone. The show morphed into a typical dumb sitcom. They were much better on Threes Company.

The Ropers as characters were not ready to be placed in their own series. There was no there there. A childless, retired older middle aged couple moving into a condo, the lack of a premise to keep the audience coming back sticks out like a sore thumb. The snappy back and forth between the two had to be toned way down, alone in an apartment with no one but each other to cling to the repartee goes from funny to sad. They were hosed and Norman Fell knew it, all he could do is watch it happen and complain to no one who was interested in listening.

Even the episode of the Ropers with the trio as guest stars still only managed a ranking of 37 out of 57 shows. So even with Jack Janet and Chrissy no one bothered to watch.

The Ropers as characters were not ready to be placed in their own series. There was no there there. A childless, retired older middle aged couple moving into a condo, the lack of a premise to keep the audience coming back sticks out like a sore thumb. The snappy back and forth between the two had to be toned way down, alone in an apartment with no one but each other to cling to the repartee goes from funny to sad. They were hosed and Norman Fell knew it, all he could do is watch it happen and complain to no one who was interested in listening.
Were you alive in 1979? I agree with all of your statement except when you alleged they were "hosed" or tricked. I was only 9 but Threes Company was the talk of the town even everyday in my elementary school. It was a sign you were "grown up" where you could understand adult jokes. The show was like rocket fuel for ratings. When the Ropers came about people were stoked. The Ropers were hysterical and such an important part of Threes Company. This is why the ratings were so strong for The Ropers in the first season.
It just annoys me so much when people look back in a rearview mirror and make up conspiracy theories that ABC purposely wanted to ruin a hit show and get rid of the Ropers. Spin offs of hit shows happen all the time and tank. Look at Cheers and every spin off except one tanked. Friends was one of the most popular TV sitcoms ever yet shows like Joey tanked. It happens. Fell made big bucks for 2 seasons. The contract was honored. There would be no reason in the world The Ropers was not renewed for a second season. No trickery. People could not wait to watch the Ropers.

Were you alive in 1979? I agree with all of your statement except when you alleged they were "hosed" or tricked. I was only 9 but Threes Company was the talk of the town even everyday in my elementary school. It was a sign you were "grown up" where you could understand adult jokes. The show was like rocket fuel for ratings. When the Ropers came about people were stoked. The Ropers were hysterical and such an important part of Threes Company. This is why the ratings were so strong for The Ropers in the first season.
It just annoys me so much when people look back in a rearview mirror and make up conspiracy theories that ABC purposely wanted to ruin a hit show and get rid of the Ropers. Spin offs of hit shows happen all the time and tank. Look at Cheers and every spin off except one tanked. Friends was one of the most popular TV sitcoms ever yet shows like Joey tanked. It happens. Fell made big bucks for 2 seasons. The contract was honored. There would be no reason in the world The Ropers was not renewed for a second season. No trickery. People could not wait to watch the Ropers.

Ropers was not renewed for a 3rd season

IMHO, the Brookes’ killed the show. They were painful to watch, as was Helen’s “Momma.” And as much as I loved the Rooers, there was nowhere for them to return to TC.

IMHO, the Brookes’ killed the show. They were painful to watch, as was Helen’s “Momma.” And as much as I loved the Rooers, there was nowhere for them to return to TC.

Ann was always a pleasure to watch

On the Ropers thread, a poster mentioned that John Ritter was the reason for the show the Ropers because the Ropers were taking too much attention from him.
Right away, I disagreed since I always thought TC was copying their British counterpart by giving the landlords their own spinoff.
Now, I am wondering if John Ritter did have something to do with the Ropers getting their own show.
What I notice is that when the Ropers left is at the same time Chrissy was becoming unwatchable, and more episodes about Jack.

Didn't the Ropers follow TC on the schedule originally?

On the Ropers thread, a poster mentioned that John Ritter was the reason for the show the Ropers because the Ropers were taking too much attention from him.
Right away, I disagreed since I always thought TC was copying their British counterpart by giving the landlords their own spinoff.
Now, I am wondering if John Ritter did have something to do with the Ropers getting their own show.
What I notice is that when the Ropers left is at the same time Chrissy was becoming unwatchable, and more episodes about Jack.

Didn't the Ropers follow TC on the schedule originally?


The Ropers only aired after Three's Company once which was March 13, 1979. That the first Ropers episode. After that it aired at 10pm on Tuesday Nights

On the Ropers thread, a poster mentioned that John Ritter was the reason for the show the Ropers because the Ropers were taking too much attention from him.
Right away, I disagreed since I always thought TC was copying their British counterpart by giving the landlords their own spinoff.
Now, I am wondering if John Ritter did have something to do with the Ropers getting their own show.
What I notice is that when the Ropers left is at the same time Chrissy was becoming unwatchable, and more episodes about Jack.

Didn't the Ropers follow TC on the schedule originally?
The only issue with that conspiracy is that ABC wanted a spin off as early as the beginning of season 2. Threes Company was a #1 show. Ritter had great comedic timing with the Ropers and why would he immediately want to kill it off? Ritter was asked on a late show in 1997 if he preferred Roper or Furley. He said Helen was his favorite. The show was so successful that ABC was milking it for all it was worth. There have been countless documentaries and behind the scenes shows about Threes Company. Never once did anyone suggest Ritter wanted the Ropers to leave. When people say that they should include a source of such information. The spin off was being drafted so early when the show was an immediate hit. Why would Ritter or anyone in the cast want to mess with that success? The only reason why the Ropers left was because of the money ABC gave them. The deal was sweet enough for them to get their own show. Lastly, we know that Fell wanted to come back and went on the record about that. Fell never said once that Ritter wanted him off the show and did not want him back. All these decisions were made by ABC executives.

The only issue with that conspiracy is that ABC wanted a spin off as early as the beginning of season 2. Threes Company was a #1 show. Ritter had great comedic timing with the Ropers and why would he immediately want to kill it off? Ritter was asked on a late show in 1997 if he preferred Roper or Furley. He said Helen was his favorite. The show was so successful that ABC was milking it for all it was worth. There have been countless documentaries and behind the scenes shows about Threes Company. Never once did anyone suggest Ritter wanted the Ropers to leave. When people say that they should include a source of such information. The spin off was being drafted so early when the show was an immediate hit. Why would Ritter or anyone in the cast want to mess with that success? The only reason why the Ropers left was because of the money ABC gave them. The deal was sweet enough for them to get their own show. Lastly, we know that Fell wanted to come back and went on the record about that. Fell never said once that Ritter wanted him off the show and did not want him back. All these decisions were made by ABC executives.

Not only that, Roper wasnt seen enough to take attention away from John Ritter lol

Were you alive in 1979? I agree with all of your statement except when you alleged they were "hosed" or tricked. I was only 9 but Threes Company was the talk of the town even everyday in my elementary school. It was a sign you were "grown up" where you could understand adult jokes. The show was like rocket fuel for ratings. When the Ropers came about people were stoked. The Ropers were hysterical and such an important part of Threes Company. This is why the ratings were so strong for The Ropers in the first season.
It just annoys me so much when people look back in a rearview mirror and make up conspiracy theories that ABC purposely wanted to ruin a hit show and get rid of the Ropers. Spin offs of hit shows happen all the time and tank. Look at Cheers and every spin off except one tanked. Friends was one of the most popular TV sitcoms ever yet shows like Joey tanked. It happens. Fell made big bucks for 2 seasons. The contract was honored. There would be no reason in the world The Ropers was not renewed for a second season. No trickery. People could not wait to watch the Ropers.

There's a lot to unpack here and there is a somewhat similar posting by you that I responded to in The Ropers Forum. First a housekeeping issue:

"I agree with all of your statement except when you alleged they were "hosed" or tricked".

Hosed means to be screwed, out of luck. Fell wasn't tricked, he knew exactly what was going on as I pointed out.

You said:

"This is why the ratings were so strong for The Ropers in the first season".

"People could not wait to watch the Ropers"

These statements are a bit misleading. The first episode followed Three's Company, it reached about 27 million households coming in as the number 2 show of the week. That's a very good start, but that's what it was a start. The second episode lost about a third of the viewers that watched first episode. By the fifth episode the show had lost a little over half the audience it started with finishing in the 29th position.

You said:

"It just annoys me so much when people look back in a rearview mirror and make up conspiracy theories that ABC purposely wanted to ruin a hit show and get rid of the Ropers".

This is what I wrote:

"Of course the network didn't want The Ropers to fail"

You keep missing the point, it's not that the network wanted the series to fail but the network was realistic about its chances for success. Let's take a look:

They scheduled the series at 10pm for the short run first season, a timeslot not used for sitcoms. Let's turn our attention to season2.

There was another sitcom spinoff scheduled for the 79-80 season from another successful ABC series (Soap), so let's take a look at how ABC dealt with Benson.

Benson was scheduled at 8:30 Thursday night, as part of a two hour sitcom block that included Laverne and Shirley at 8pm, the series was the number 1 show of the 78-79 TV season, Barney Miller at 9pm, the series came in at number 15 for the 78-79 season and Soap at 9:30. A lot of support for Benson, compare that to The Ropers, exiled to Saturday night at 8pm, no lead-in with another new series Detective School to follow. Saturday night had the lowest viewership, the night with the oldest demos, a night incompatible with the Three's Company demos. So the very people most familiar with the Ropers were the very people least likely to be at home watching TV when the series was on. But the bad news doesn't stop there, the series was up against CHIPS, an established hit.

Let’s quickly take a look at some of the other available timeslots for new sitcoms. There was Tuesday at 8:30 between monster hits Happy Days (number 3 for 78-79) and Three’s Company (number 2 for 78-79, and of course the mother series), what did ABC do, placed new series Angie in that timeslot. There was Sunday’s at 8:30 between monster hit Mork & Mindy at 8pm (tied for number 3 in 78-79), and old reliable ABC Sunday Night Movie (tied for number 15), what did ABC do with that slot, gave it to new series The Associates.

It’s clear what the network thought of the series, and it’s clear the production company wanted to permanently remove the Roper’s from Three’s Company.

John Ritter was accommodated at every turn not only on Three's Company but on the spinoff series Three's A Crowd. He was the star, the network considered him the star and the production company considered him the star, stars tend to get what they want. John for whatever reasons did not think the Ropers (particularly Stanley as played by Fell) best served his interests as a performer.

There's a lot to unpack here and there is a somewhat similar posting by you that I responded to in The Ropers Forum. First a housekeeping issue:

"I agree with all of your statement except when you alleged they were "hosed" or tricked".

Hosed means to be screwed, out of luck. Fell wasn't tricked, he knew exactly what was going on as I pointed out.

You said:

"This is why the ratings were so strong for The Ropers in the first season".

"People could not wait to watch the Ropers"

These statements are a bit misleading. The first episode followed Three's Company, it reached about 27 million households coming in as the number 2 show of the week. That's a very good start, but that's what it was a start. The second episode lost about a third of the viewers that watched first episode. By the fifth episode the show had lost a little over half the audience it started with finishing in the 29th position.

You said:

"It just annoys me so much when people look back in a rearview mirror and make up conspiracy theories that ABC purposely wanted to ruin a hit show and get rid of the Ropers".

This is what I wrote:

"Of course the network didn't want The Ropers to fail"

You keep missing the point, it's not that the network wanted the series to fail but the network was realistic about its chances for success. Let's take a look:

They scheduled the series at 10pm for the short run first season, a timeslot not used for sitcoms. Let's turn our attention to season2.

There was another sitcom spinoff scheduled for the 79-80 season from another successful ABC series (Soap), so let's take a look at how ABC dealt with Benson.

Benson was scheduled at 8:30 Thursday night, as part of a two hour sitcom block that included Laverne and Shirley at 8pm, the series was the number 1 show of the 78-79 TV season, Barney Miller at 9pm, the series came in at number 15 for the 78-79 season and Soap at 9:30. A lot of support for Benson, compare that to The Ropers, exiled to Saturday night at 8pm, no lead-in with another new series Detective School to follow. Saturday night had the lowest viewership, the night with the oldest demos, a night incompatible with the Three's Company demos. So the very people most familiar with the Ropers were the very people least likely to be at home watching TV when the series was on. But the bad news doesn't stop there, the series was up against CHIPS, an established hit.

Let’s quickly take a look at some of the other available timeslots for new sitcoms. There was Tuesday at 8:30 between monster hits Happy Days (number 3 for 78-79) and Three’s Company (number 2 for 78-79, and of course the mother series), what did ABC do, placed new series Angie in that timeslot. There was Sunday’s at 8:30 between monster hit Mork & Mindy at 8pm (tied for number 3 in 78-79), and old reliable ABC Sunday Night Movie (tied for number 15), what did ABC do with that slot, gave it to new series The Associates.

It’s clear what the network thought of the series, and it’s clear the production company wanted to permanently remove the Roper’s from Three’s Company.

John Ritter was accommodated at every turn not only on Three's Company but on the spinoff series Three's A Crowd. He was the star, the network considered him the star and the production company considered him the star, stars tend to get what they want. John for whatever reasons did not think the Ropers (particularly Stanley as played by Fell) best served his interests as a performer.

You know I never looked at the ratings for the 1st season and this is surprising. I just saw what you meant that by the 5th episode the ratings took a plunge. I was always so focused on the final ranking for the season and not the drop off from the 1st episode

There's a lot to unpack here and there is a somewhat similar posting by you that I responded to in The Ropers Forum. First a housekeeping issue:

"I agree with all of your statement except when you alleged they were "hosed" or tricked".

Hosed means to be screwed, out of luck. Fell wasn't tricked, he knew exactly what was going on as I pointed out.

You said:

"This is why the ratings were so strong for The Ropers in the first season".

"People could not wait to watch the Ropers"

These statements are a bit misleading. The first episode followed Three's Company, it reached about 27 million households coming in as the number 2 show of the week. That's a very good start, but that's what it was a start. The second episode lost about a third of the viewers that watched first episode. By the fifth episode the show had lost a little over half the audience it started with finishing in the 29th position.

You said:

"It just annoys me so much when people look back in a rearview mirror and make up conspiracy theories that ABC purposely wanted to ruin a hit show and get rid of the Ropers".

This is what I wrote:

"Of course the network didn't want The Ropers to fail"

You keep missing the point, it's not that the network wanted the series to fail but the network was realistic about its chances for success. Let's take a look:

They scheduled the series at 10pm for the short run first season, a timeslot not used for sitcoms. Let's turn our attention to season2.

There was another sitcom spinoff scheduled for the 79-80 season from another successful ABC series (Soap), so let's take a look at how ABC dealt with Benson.

Benson was scheduled at 8:30 Thursday night, as part of a two hour sitcom block that included Laverne and Shirley at 8pm, the series was the number 1 show of the 78-79 TV season, Barney Miller at 9pm, the series came in at number 15 for the 78-79 season and Soap at 9:30. A lot of support for Benson, compare that to The Ropers, exiled to Saturday night at 8pm, no lead-in with another new series Detective School to follow. Saturday night had the lowest viewership, the night with the oldest demos, a night incompatible with the Three's Company demos. So the very people most familiar with the Ropers were the very people least likely to be at home watching TV when the series was on. But the bad news doesn't stop there, the series was up against CHIPS, an established hit.

Let’s quickly take a look at some of the other available timeslots for new sitcoms. There was Tuesday at 8:30 between monster hits Happy Days (number 3 for 78-79) and Three’s Company (number 2 for 78-79, and of course the mother series), what did ABC do, placed new series Angie in that timeslot. There was Sunday’s at 8:30 between monster hit Mork & Mindy at 8pm (tied for number 3 in 78-79), and old reliable ABC Sunday Night Movie (tied for number 15), what did ABC do with that slot, gave it to new series The Associates.

It’s clear what the network thought of the series, and it’s clear the production company wanted to permanently remove the Roper’s from Three’s Company.

John Ritter was accommodated at every turn not only on Three's Company but on the spinoff series Three's A Crowd. He was the star, the network considered him the star and the production company considered him the star, stars tend to get what they want. John for whatever reasons did not think the Ropers (particularly Stanley as played by Fell) best served his interests as a performer.
There have been countless books, behind the scenes, and documentaries on Threes Company. In each all the actors are interviewed and we get all the drama. NOT ONCE has anyone (including Fell) alleged that Ritter wanted the Ropers gone. Please provide a source for that information. I am a Threes Company nut and watched every behind the scene show and book. No one ever alleged such a thing. Even the guy you claim was "screwed" never alleged such a thing. If you had a source other than your opinion than I would agree with you. It is a FACT and documented that ABC wanted a spin off right after season 1. Even if Ritter secretly wanted them gone, that would be so early for anyone to get jealous.
If you can document what you allege then I will take back everything I have said.

The reasons I am wondering in John Ritter had anything to do with the Ropers leaving is that of the five original TC characters - who was the most popular, the most talked about? Chrissy and the Ropers. Jack wasn't as talked about as those three.

Then the following season Lana was added, and what did her character do? Obsess over Jack.

Of course, the executives wouldn't want the Ropers to fail, but didn't really care if it did.

The reasons I am wondering in John Ritter had anything to do with the Ropers leaving is that of the five original TC characters - who was the most popular, the most talked about? Chrissy and the Ropers. Jack wasn't as talked about as those three.

Then the following season Lana was added, and what did her character do? Obsess over Jack.

Of course, the executives wouldn't want the Ropers to fail, but didn't really care if it did.
Ritter went on the record when he was alive that he was against the Lana character. He said it made not sense that Jack was supposed to be a skirt chaser and he would be constantly rejecting the advances of a sexy older woman. The Lana character was axed because the girls complained she was getting too much air time. In the episode "A Camping We Will Go" the Suzanne and Joyce were upset that they were reduced to the second subplot while Lana had way more lines and was the star of that episode with Jack.
Lana was brought in as a replacement to Mrs Roper who was sexually frustrated. Furley lived alone and they needed a sexually frustrated woman for jokes. It was a lame attempt because the Lana character only worked in the first few episodes then it was stale. There was no replacing Helen Roper.