For years I have known the Ropers had a good 1st season but there were actually signs during season 1 that the show needed to follow Three's Company because after the first episode that ranked #2, there seemed to be a dip in the numbers even though the show finished the season ranked #7

After the 2nd episode the show was ranked #11
after the 3rd episode the show was ranked #8
After 4th episode the show was ranked #12
After the 5th episode the show was ranked #30
After the 6th and final episode the show finished #9

Regardless of when it aired, this puts to bed the myth that it was not a successful show. For a show to debut in the top 10 in its debut season is spectacular. I was only 10 but I remember all the hoopla about the Ropers getting their own show.
I think the immediate success accelerated its demise. These strong ratings must have given ABC confidence to move The Ropers to odd times thinking it would still pull ratings. Perhaps if it had a modest first season would have kept it closer to Threes Company. Regardless, the writing mid second season was not great. We lost the Ropers and what we loved about them. Stanley had no job or purpose in life, Helen was no longer sexually frustrated and we got annoying characters like Helen's mother and sister. The wheels were going to come off eventually.

Regardless of when it aired, this puts to bed the myth that it was not a successful show. For a show to debut in the top 10 in its debut season is spectacular. I was only 10 but I remember all the hoopla about the Ropers getting their own show.
I think the immediate success accelerated its demise. These strong ratings must have given ABC confidence to move The Ropers to odd times thinking it would still pull ratings. Perhaps if it had a modest first season would have kept it closer to Threes Company. Regardless, the writing mid second season was not great. We lost the Ropers and what we loved about them. Stanley had no job or purpose in life, Helen was no longer sexually frustrated and we got annoying characters like Helen's mother and sister. The wheels were going to come off eventually.

A spinoff on the Larry Character would have been more successful because the TC fanbase was young people and since he was friends with Jack they would have tuned in. I dont think many people the age of Stanley and Helen was watching TC in 1979 to even follow the Ropers on their own show.

A spinoff on the Larry Character would have been more successful because the TC fanbase was young people and since he was friends with Jack they would have tuned in. I dont think many people the age of Stanley and Helen was watching TC in 1979 to even follow the Ropers on their own show.

Actually Richard Kline (Larry) was pitched by the production team to the network as the star of a spinoff that would eventually become Three's a Crowd but the network was not interested. I believe that occurred during or right after the sixth season or at the beginning of the 7th. It was pitched a second time with John in the lead and ABC became interested.

Someone wanted The Ropers off Three's Company the evidence points towards John, that was consistent with everything else that happened during the run of Three's Company and for that matter the Three's a Crowd spinoff. I agree that if this was actual attempt to spinoff something from the enormously successful Three's Company it would have been aimed at the same demographic group. What I like to call a faux spinoff (that is a production company adds character(s) to an existing series just for the purposes of launching them into their own series, Laverne & Shirley and Maude are examples of this) could have been done around some young people who frequent the Regal Beagle.

Regardless of when it aired, this puts to bed the myth that it was not a successful show. For a show to debut in the top 10 in its debut season is spectacular. I was only 10 but I remember all the hoopla about the Ropers getting their own show.
I think the immediate success accelerated its demise. These strong ratings must have given ABC confidence to move The Ropers to odd times thinking it would still pull ratings. Perhaps if it had a modest first season would have kept it closer to Threes Company. Regardless, the writing mid second season was not great. We lost the Ropers and what we loved about them. Stanley had no job or purpose in life, Helen was no longer sexually frustrated and we got annoying characters like Helen's mother and sister. The wheels were going to come off eventually.

You said:

"this puts to bed the myth that it was not a successful show".

It does exactly the opposite! I've run through this with you in another post, the show lost one third of its audience between the first and second episode, by episode 5 the show had lost over half its audience. There's nothing successful about that. AfterMASH was the biggest thing on television for the first three or four weeks it was on by midseason the rating were dropping at such an alarming rate CBS was on the fence about ordering anymore episodes.

You said:

"These strong ratings must have given ABC confidence to move The Ropers to odd times thinking it would still pull ratings".

That's complete nonsense. If the network believed in the series they would have supported it like ABC did with Benson, The Associates and Angie. The network placed it on Saturday night, the night with the lowest viewership, the night least attractive to advertisers it was put their to minimize the damage. Why do think Fell flew across the country on his own dime to meet with ABC executives and beg them not to move the series to Saturday.

You said:

"Perhaps if it had a modest first season would have kept it closer to Threes Company".

It doesn't work like that. Taxi was a much more important show than the Ropers, ABC thought they had a potential major hit on their hands and wanted to give it more time to grow. Obviously ABC was very high on Angie, a show that fit ABC's audience like a glove so the slot before Three's Company was going to be filled by Angie with the strong Happy Days lead-in and Three's Company supporting it on the other side.

Now here's the real problem with your response, you correctly point out the problems with the series from the start, and by definition imply you could see what network executives and the production company couldn't! I don't think so, the knew what they were selling, Fell knew what they were selling but it goes back to the old saying: Due to circumstances beyond our control", namely the star of Three's Company wanted those characters off the show, let's take a look:

"We lost the Ropers and what we loved about them. Stanley had no job or purpose in life, Helen was no longer sexually frustrated and we got annoying characters like Helen's mother and sister. The wheels were going to come off eventually".

Those problems that you pointed out existed from the start.

#Facts
Like Three's Company, The Ropers was introduced as a late season replacement series in the spring of 1979 premiering the same night as Three's Company on ABC's successful Tuesday night lineup, airing at 10 pm. In its first season, the ratings for the show were very high (the show finished at number 8 for the 1978–79 season), and had the second-highest series premiere rating at the time.[2] After the season premiere, Three's Company went on hiatus, but The Ropers still did well. ABC reran the episodes over the summer of 1979 (in August on Sundays) where they continued to achieve high ratings leading many to believe that the series would enjoy a long run.

#Facts
Like Three's Company, The Ropers was introduced as a late season replacement series in the spring of 1979 premiering the same night as Three's Company on ABC's successful Tuesday night lineup, airing at 10 pm. In its first season, the ratings for the show were very high (the show finished at number 8 for the 1978–79 season), and had the second-highest series premiere rating at the time.[2] After the season premiere, Three's Company went on hiatus, but The Ropers still did well. ABC reran the episodes over the summer of 1979 (in August on Sundays) where they continued to achieve high ratings leading many to believe that the series would enjoy a long run.

I never knew they aired reruns of the show in August. Oh wait, I guess that was a way to grab new viewers before the 2nd season started In september

I never knew they aired reruns of the show in August. Oh wait, I guess that was a way to grab new viewers before the 2nd season started In september

Yeah, it doesn't show up on the Wikipedia listing but in fact it was on in August of 79, although it was not the full month, episodes ran on 8/12, 8/19, 8/26, and 9/2. I'll go through the numbers in my response to BestTVever.

Yeah, it doesn't show up on the Wikipedia listing but in fact it was on in August of 79, although it was not the full month, episodes ran on 8/12, 8/19, 8/26, and 9/2. I'll go through the numbers in my response to BestTVever.

I would have aired the one with Larry on 9/8, a week before the season premiere of the new season with the Trio as guests if I was the president of ABC. That way you would have had back to back episode with a TC character

I was alive in 1979 and remember all the buzz about watching The Ropers. Threes Company was the talk of the town and on all the TV magazine covers. We knew it was dumb but we still tuned in to watch. The first season is actually not that bad but it was all novelty and shined in the limelight of Threes Company. Season 2 kicks off with the best episode IMHO, Stanley, The Ladies Man. But even the best episode in season 2 the ratings went way down. We still see the hot tub in episode 2 of season 2, Days of Beer and Rosie. But soon that would be gone. I always laugh at the title almost a rip off of Days of weeds and beer from Threes Company. We suffer from seeing a bored Stanley and Helen with nothing to do. No wild kids living above them to intrude on.

#Facts
Like Three's Company, The Ropers was introduced as a late season replacement series in the spring of 1979 premiering the same night as Three's Company on ABC's successful Tuesday night lineup, airing at 10 pm. In its first season, the ratings for the show were very high (the show finished at number 8 for the 1978–79 season), and had the second-highest series premiere rating at the time.[2] After the season premiere, Three's Company went on hiatus, but The Ropers still did well. ABC reran the episodes over the summer of 1979 (in August on Sundays) where they continued to achieve high ratings leading many to believe that the series would enjoy a long run.

My response will be in a different order than the issues you raised.

You said:

"ABC reran the episodes over the summer of 1979 (in August on Sundays) where they continued to achieve high ratings leading many to believe that the series would enjoy a long run".

I don't like using summer numbers since they tend to be a bad barometer to use to predict what will happen once the new season starts. That said, you brought it up so let's take a look.

The audience numbers are lower during the summer so The Ropers 8/12 audience size would roughly translate to a number 37 position during the regular primetime season.

The Ropers started running on Sundays on 8/12, at 8:30 pm behind (and this is key) monster hit Mork&Mindy. The first week the show came in at number 23, the week of 8/19 number 27, the week of 8/26 number 19, the final episode aired 9/2 and that came in at number 32. In all four instances the show trailed Mork&Mindy in the ratings suggesting the it was being carried by the lead-in. It was hard to be happy by the mediocre performance of the series especially considering the fact that the final episode dropped out of the top 30. Episode 2 had done worse than episode 1, episode 4 worse than 3. Again, the pattern matched Mork &Mindy suggesting the lead-in was the critical factor for The Ropers.

On 9/9 The Emmy's were on so the series was preempted, The Ropers would begin season two, only the seventh episode of the series the following Saturday night 9/15.

Now let's reintroduce your description, "ABC reran the episodes over the summer of 1979 (in August on Sundays) where they continued to achieve high ratings leading many to believe that the series would enjoy a long run".

That big audience you alluded to must have been excited, new season, Jack, Chrissy, and Janet as guest stars up against a CHIPS rerun and a preview of Working Stiffs which would finish 55 out of the 57 shows of that week. How did the show do, number 37! It barely beat out the CHIPS rerun. What's worse, Detective School at 8:30 actually outperformed it finishing in 31st place. Incidentally, Detective School was number 6 in the ratings the week of August 5th, number 16 the week of August12, and number 5 the week of August 19th. So much for summer ratings! After 9/15 things got really ugly in a hurry, The Ropers dropped out of the top 50. The more people saw of the series the less they liked it. This was consistent with the summer and consistent with the initial run in March/April.

You said:

"In its first season, the ratings for the show were very high (the show finished at number 8 for the 1978–79 season)"

Networks care more about week to week than the overall season number which can be skewed for various reasons. The show lost a third of its audience from episode 1 to episode 2, by episode 5 it had lost more than half. The final episode rebounded but you have to take into account the fact that it had Richard Kline in it. The network did what they could during the summer putting it behind Mork&Mindy on Sunday night but the audience interest in the series was not there, the only hope the series had was to be placed behind a much more successful series and based on the series potential to grow the network was unwilling to do that.

You said:

"Like Three's Company, The Ropers was introduced as a late season replacement series"

Three's Company had success written all over it, The Roper's didn't. During the abbreviated first season the show outperformed the show in front of it, something The Ropers did not do. The demographics were also a bullseye for ABC, there is no comparison between the first year of Three's Company and The Ropers.

I would have aired the one with Larry on 9/8, a week before the season premiere of the new season with the Trio as guests if I was the president of ABC. That way you would have had back to back episode with a TC character

The network could have, the episode performed well the first time out, but the show had everything going for it the opening week (Jack, Chrissy, Janet as guest characters) and it did horribly. Up against very weak competition, a CHIPS rerun and a preview of Working Stiffs which bombed (it finished 55 out of 57 shows), the series finished 37 for the week, finishing behind Detective School (31) the series that followed it.

Under better circumstances the series would have been pulled at the end of the month and the Ropers returned to Three's Company similar to the way Grady was returned to Sanford and Son.

Why would John Ritter want to get rid of the Ropers? They did not assume they were the stars of the show like Suzanne Somers later. The main reason I have heard was ABC wanted a less expensive cast, just one replacing two would do that.

Why would John Ritter want to get rid of the Ropers? They did not assume they were the stars of the show like Suzanne Somers later. The main reason I have heard was ABC wanted a less expensive cast, just one replacing two would do that.

The answer is simple and complicated at the same time. The simple answer, stars have their ways. A very small thing to an outsider is a big deal for them and it's something they want dealt with. I'll give an example, on Mork & Mindy do you remember the character Remo, it was a small supporting part played by DJ/actor Jay Thomas. Thomas was hired to give Robin a little relief from carrying the comedy load all by himself. Jay discussed with Gilbert Gottfried on Gilbert's podcast (I can't believe both those guys are gone) how difficult and unfriendly Robin was to him. Now, you tell me what did Robin have to be concerned with, did he actually think Jay would steal the show from him! It's just the way it is.

John wanted the show to be about his character, during the early run of the series as Diane3 pointed out The Ropers and Chrissy were the breakout characters, for John that was a problem. He was the star, he wanted the focus on his character, none of this is unusual. You should read about some of the stuff that went on behind the scenes of Hawaii 5-0, Jack Lord had an ego the size of the Grand Canyon. You should read about some of the things that went on with Darren McGavin on Riverboat, Burt Reynolds described McGavin this way, "he came down off the cross to do that series".

To put it simply, John wanted the show to focus on his life with two female roommates, his problems with his landlord, how Jack dealt with his best friend, Jack's love interests and his various jobs and budding career as a chef.

Go back and follow the series from beginning to end, without exception every change benefitted one person in the cast at the expense of all the others. It even leaks over to the Three's a Crowd spinoff with the absurd hiring of Mary Cordette as the female lead.

I remember Remo, he really didn't add much to Mork and Mindy. ABC made a mistake firing Mindy's family in place of Remo and his sister. A previous comment about Saturday nights being the worst night of the week, it wasn't the wasteland then that networks abandoned in the 21st century. CBS had its strong 70s comedy block with All in the Family, Mary Tyler Moore, and others. On ABC the same era of The Ropers, The Love Boat lasted several seasons on Saturday, also getting a ton of big name guest stars. Then NBC would have success there in the 80s with The Golden Girls hitting big.

Why would John Ritter want to get rid of the Ropers? They did not assume they were the stars of the show like Suzanne Somers later. The main reason I have heard was ABC wanted a less expensive cast, just one replacing two would do that.
Don was paid more than the Ropers. All of their salaries exploded around 1980. ABC gave the Ropers a lucrative deal for their own show.
Nowhere was it ever suggested anyone wanted the Ropers off the show except capitalizing on the show's initial success.
Its a myth and personal opinion that people write Ritter wanted the Ropers off the show. All of the cast especially the Ropers were easy set ups for Ritter's comedy. ABC wanted a spin off as early as 1977 but the actors and producers of Threes Company thought it was too soon.

Don was paid more than the Ropers. All of their salaries exploded around 1980. ABC gave the Ropers a lucrative deal for their own show.
Nowhere was it ever suggested anyone wanted the Ropers off the show except capitalizing on the show's initial success.
Its a myth and personal opinion that people write Ritter wanted the Ropers off the show. All of the cast especially the Ropers were easy set ups for Ritter's comedy. ABC wanted a spin off as early as 1977 but the actors and producers of Threes Company thought it was too soon.

Correct that was something I never knew until recently that the plan was in the works for ropers to get their own show as early as 1977. Something else not covered on True Hollywood story

Correct that was something I never knew until recently that the plan was in the works for ropers to get their own show as early as 1977. Something else not covered on True Hollywood story
If you were alive in 1977 Threes Company EXPLODED on the scene. It was sort of like All In The Family in the sense that there was never a show like it before. The mid to late 70s was a very socially liberal time. The show had so much sex innuendo in it made it a lure for so many. ABC immediately started to look to capitalize on its success. Of course it was too soon for a spin off when the show had not even done a full and complete full season. But that shows how popular the show was. The show was on the cover of all the magazines and people would wonder if it was ok for kids to watch which never really happned before. I was in grade school and kids 8 and 9 years old would come into school bragging they watched Threes Company and got the sex jokes.

If you were alive in 1977 Threes Company EXPLODED on the scene. It was sort of like All In The Family in the sense that there was never a show like it before. The mid to late 70s was a very socially liberal time. The show had so much sex innuendo in it made it a lure for so many. ABC immediately started to look to capitalize on its success. Of course it was too soon for a spin off when the show had not even done a full and complete full season. But that shows how popular the show was. The show was on the cover of all the magazines and people would wonder if it was ok for kids to watch which never really happned before. I was in grade school and kids 8 and 9 years old would come into school bragging they watched Threes Company and got the sex jokes.

I was only 2 in 77 and didnt discovered Three's Company until 83 in syndication

I remember Remo, he really didn't add much to Mork and Mindy. ABC made a mistake firing Mindy's family in place of Remo and his sister. A previous comment about Saturday nights being the worst night of the week, it wasn't the wasteland then that networks abandoned in the 21st century. CBS had its strong 70s comedy block with All in the Family, Mary Tyler Moore, and others. On ABC the same era of The Ropers, The Love Boat lasted several seasons on Saturday, also getting a ton of big name guest stars. Then NBC would have success there in the 80s with The Golden Girls hitting big.

I introduced the topic of Remo and actor Jay Thomas to point out the fact that stars have their ways. Thomas was just there to help space out Robin's frantic brand of comedy, he posed no threat to Williams, yet Robin was unwelcoming and unsupportive to the character or Jay Thomas.

Saturday night wasn't the worst night of the week, it was the night with the oldest demographics and it had lower viewership numbers, in other words people, especially younger people were doing other things besides watching television.

The Love Boat had guest stars but they tended to be legacy stars(old movie and tv stars), or stars from current series (mostly ABC series).

The Golden Girls was tailor made for the Saturday night audience, a show featuring two big names from the past about their lives and very funny. It had smash written all over it.

Don was paid more than the Ropers. All of their salaries exploded around 1980. ABC gave the Ropers a lucrative deal for their own show.
Nowhere was it ever suggested anyone wanted the Ropers off the show except capitalizing on the show's initial success.
Its a myth and personal opinion that people write Ritter wanted the Ropers off the show. All of the cast especially the Ropers were easy set ups for Ritter's comedy. ABC wanted a spin off as early as 1977 but the actors and producers of Threes Company thought it was too soon.

Ritter wanted the show focused on his character, he wanted the series writers focused on his character and focused on writing material that got his character over.

The problem is this, for lack of a better word the "established" Three's Company history does not fully match the facts. With respect to The Ropers look how it performed during the summer, when you stated it continued to achieve high ratings, over a four week period it dropped from 23 to 27 to 32, that is a problem. The first run in March/April it lost over half it's audience by the fifth episode! That's bad, with Jack, Janet and Chrissy on the premiere episode for season 2 (9/15) against a CHIPS rerun and a show that ranked almost dead last for the week the show staggered home in 37th place behind Detective School (31) the show at 8:30! The very next week the 8th episode of the series had fallen out of the top 50. This is just the 8th episode. How can you possibly argue the series was successful for any length of time. Fell himself stated ABC kept The Ropers on to prevent them from returning to Three's Company. What would ABC care if they were brought back, what would the producers care, the characters got over, the show was a smash with them on it, there's more here, you don't want to see but it's right in front of you.

Ritter wanted the show focused on his character, he wanted the series writers focused on his character and focused on writing material that got his character over.

The problem is this, for lack of a better word the "established" Three's Company history does not fully match the facts. With respect to The Ropers look how it performed during the summer, when you stated it continued to achieve high ratings, over a four week period it dropped from 23 to 27 to 32, that is a problem. The first run in March/April it lost over half it's audience by the fifth episode! That's bad, with Jack, Janet and Chrissy on the premiere episode for season 2 (9/15) against a CHIPS rerun and a show that ranked almost dead last for the week the show staggered home in 37th place behind Detective School (31) the show at 8:30! The very next week the 8th episode of the series had fallen out of the top 50. This is just the 8th episode. How can you possibly argue the series was successful for any length of time. Fell himself stated ABC kept The Ropers on to prevent them from returning to Three's Company. What would ABC care if they were brought back, what would the producers care, the characters got over, the show was a smash with them on it, there's more here, you don't want to see but it's right in front of you.
No one disputes Ritter was hired and was to be the center character. Even with Suzanne being the biggest star, no one ever suggested that Ritter wanted Suzanne off the show. So to say he wanted the Ropers gone is pure opinion with no supporting facts. The Ropers actually facilitated his comedy. Suzanne did the same. This is why Joyce said she had no problem with the characters Jack and Chrissy being the physical comedy duo. He relished them.
This issue I see is you are looking back with what you know now. I view things as they were in real time in 1979. At the end of the Ropers first mini season, the show was considered a success. Did the ratings fall towards the end? YES. However the show still finished in the top 10. That is a success. ABC had high hopes for a second season. Bringing the Threes Company cast in for the first episode of the second season probably was to bring up some sagging ratings. In the summer of 1979, ABC and the cast thought there could be a long run of the show. That was reality. Its easy to look back and say OMG the show was bad and had horrible ratings in the second season and make up an opinion that ABC had a conspiracy theory to get rid of the Ropers. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Of course, we will never know for sure whether John Ritter wanted the Ropers of the show, but these threads are sure making me think. I am now leaning toward that he did.

Many years back on a Happy Days Biography, Henry Winkler mentioned that at the height of Fonzie mania, someone wanted to give the Fonz his own show. Henry said no. He said it wouldn't work because for the Fonz to be popular that he had to interact with the Happy Days cast and not totally new characters.

Of course, we will never know for sure whether John Ritter wanted the Ropers of the show, but these threads are sure making me think. I am now leaning toward that he did.

Many years back on a Happy Days Biography, Henry Winkler mentioned that at the height of Fonzie mania, someone wanted to give the Fonz his own show. Henry said no. He said it wouldn't work because for the Fonz to be popular that he had to interact with the Happy Days cast and not totally new characters.


But there was no Ropers mania

Of course, we will never know for sure whether John Ritter wanted the Ropers of the show, but these threads are sure making me think. I am now leaning toward that he did.

Many years back on a Happy Days Biography, Henry Winkler mentioned that at the height of Fonzie mania, someone wanted to give the Fonz his own show. Henry said no. He said it wouldn't work because for the Fonz to be popular that he had to interact with the Happy Days cast and not totally new characters.

There are different versions of this so putting the various stories together this is what appears to have happened.

Happy Days was in freefall and the network had decided to cancel the series, Marshall reworked the series with Fonzie taking over as the lead character and the show being filmed in front of an audience. The network liked the changes and renewed the series. At some point there was a discussion about changing the series title to Fonzie's Happy Days, now this is where it gets confusing. Henry states that he turned that idea down, Howard who was being demoted indicated that he would have left the series if the title had been changed. It was indeed fortunate for the show as well as the two actors that both were reasonable, Winkler wasn't interested in rubbing Howard's nose in the fact that he was now the star, and Howard was willing to go along with the change for the good of the series. Clearly the show would have gone on with or without Howard so I give Winkler a lot of credit and Howard for taking this setback in stride.

There are different versions of this so putting the various stories together this is what appears to have happened.

Happy Days was in freefall and the network had decided to cancel the series, Marshall reworked the series with Fonzie taking over as the lead character and the show being filmed in front of an audience. The network liked the changes and renewed the series. At some point there was a discussion about changing the series title to Fonzie's Happy Days, now this is where it gets confusing. Henry states that he turned that idea down, Howard who was being demoted indicated that he would have left the series if the title had been changed. It was indeed fortunate for the show as well as the two actors that both were reasonable, Winkler wasn't interested in rubbing Howard's nose in the fact that he was now the star, and Howard was willing to go along with the change for the good of the series. Clearly the show would have gone on with or without Howard so I give Winkler a lot of credit and Howard for taking this setback in stride.
If Howard had not stood up the change would have happened. He even lobbied other cast members.
Even though the show name was not changed, Fonzie mania was in full force. It was so crazy. Fonzie was everywhere. The season debut in 1976 made it a 2 part simply introducing Fonzie's girlfriend. Then we got Fonzie's relatives Spike and Chachi.
The fascinating part of this TV history is how Howard says the show Good Times was the fuel that changed Happy Days. Jimmie Walker's catchphrase "Dynomite" made the ABC executive start Fonzie catchphrases. It was so ridiculous in those years the sitcom would start and when Fonzie made his appearance the audience would burst into applause that would last 10 seconds. Who can forget "Ahhhhhhhhhh" or "Sit on it"

I do think Norman and Audra got a raw deal. ABC probably realized by October/November that the show wasn't going to last. They should have cancelled it right there and brought them back to Three's Company.

Maybe the way they went about the spinoff was all wrong. What about something like this: keep them in the Three's Company apartment but show what they're doing when they're not interacting with Jack, Janet and Chrissy. They could show them conversing with other tenants of the building, or on their own in their apartment. Every once in a while Jack, Janet and Chrissy could pop in.

This sort of thing could have worked...think Sam Drucker on Petticoat Junction and Green Acres, but in the same setting...or Oscar Goldman on Six Million Dollar Man and Bionic Woman.

If they'd done it that way, maybe it could have lasted a while.

I do think Norman and Audra got a raw deal. ABC probably realized by October/November that the show wasn't going to last. They should have cancelled it right there and brought them back to Three's Company.

Maybe the way they went about the spinoff was all wrong. What about something like this: keep them in the Three's Company apartment but show what they're doing when they're not interacting with Jack, Janet and Chrissy. They could show them conversing with other tenants of the building, or on their own in their apartment. Every once in a while Jack, Janet and Chrissy could pop in.

This sort of thing could have worked...think Sam Drucker on Petticoat Junction and Green Acres, but in the same setting...or Oscar Goldman on Six Million Dollar Man and Bionic Woman.

If they'd done it that way, maybe it could have lasted a while.

(for some reason this may have been posted twice, for some reason).

I do think Norman and Audra got a raw deal. ABC probably realized by October/November that the show wasn't going to last. They should have cancelled it right there and brought them back to Three's Company.

Maybe the way they went about the spinoff was all wrong. What about something like this: keep them in the Three's Company apartment but show what they're doing when they're not interacting with Jack, Janet and Chrissy. They could show them conversing with other tenants of the building, or on their own in their apartment. Every once in a while Jack, Janet and Chrissy could pop in.

This sort of thing could have worked...think Sam Drucker on Petticoat Junction and Green Acres, but in the same setting...or Oscar Goldman on Six Million Dollar Man and Bionic Woman.

If they'd done it that way, maybe it could have lasted a while.
But would it not have been crazy to have hired Don and given him such a lucrative deal, have to pay him in full for not working, causing more confusion in making some script where the Ropers buy back the building, etc.
The ratings never slipped when the Ropers left. I dont think ABC wanted to mess with the show yet again.
I would have loved to have the Ropers back but I can understand why that ship sailed. Its hard to put the genie back in the bottle.

No one disputes Ritter was hired and was to be the center character. Even with Suzanne being the biggest star, no one ever suggested that Ritter wanted Suzanne off the show. So to say he wanted the Ropers gone is pure opinion with no supporting facts. The Ropers actually facilitated his comedy. Suzanne did the same. This is why Joyce said she had no problem with the characters Jack and Chrissy being the physical comedy duo. He relished them.
This issue I see is you are looking back with what you know now. I view things as they were in real time in 1979. At the end of the Ropers first mini season, the show was considered a success. Did the ratings fall towards the end? YES. However the show still finished in the top 10. That is a success. ABC had high hopes for a second season. Bringing the Threes Company cast in for the first episode of the second season probably was to bring up some sagging ratings. In the summer of 1979, ABC and the cast thought there could be a long run of the show. That was reality. Its easy to look back and say OMG the show was bad and had horrible ratings in the second season and make up an opinion that ABC had a conspiracy theory to get rid of the Ropers. Nothing could be further from the truth.


Sorry it took so long to get back to this but there are a lot of issues here so it will take a little time.

Let's start here:

Even with Suzanne being the biggest star no one ever suggested that Ritter wanted Suzanne off the show.

I'm not sure where this is coming from, how was Somers a bigger star than Ritter going into the series. He had a recurring role on The Waltons and had done a lot of TV prior to Three's Company, checks their credits, it's close but I would give him the clear edge.

You said

"no one ever suggested that Ritter wanted Suzanne off the show".

Ritter wanted the scripts focused on his character, Somers and her husband were smart business people they knew what was going on, so the battlelines were drawn. She was not going to stay on the show serving John's character, things could have been worked out, but this was an either or situation and John had the upper hand.

You said:

"The Ropers actually facilitated his comedy".

The characters were getting over, breakout characters, John wanted the show focused on his character, when the show was talked about, written about, he wanted to be the subject of that publicity. You want proof, take a look at every change and ask yourself who benefitted from the change.

You said

"This issue I see is you are looking back with what you know now. I view things as they were in real time in 1979".

Actually the opposite is occurring, I'm trying to recreate the real time process as it actually took place. Network people pour over ratings in real time, in other words the week by week performance of a show is much more important to them than the overall season number. By the time the show finished it's initial run (March-April) several things were clear and the network acted on the information. The three new series that the network thought most highly of were scheduled with the supports around them that gave those series the best shot at success (I've covered all that). The Ropers were placed on Saturday with no supports a clear sign the network had very little faith in the series. I discussed Fell's reaction to this move, let me add one more piece, Fell indicated the network retained the series for the season to meet the cancellation stipulation in Fell contract (if the series was cancelled in less than a year the characters would be brought back to Three's Company).

To conclude, the season 2 episode 1 rating was devastating, against a CHIPS rerun, and a series opener on CBS that finished third from last and with Jack, Chrissy and Janet as guest characters the show finished 37. It even finished worse than Detective School the series on after it. If you're looking at ratings in real time that's as clear a sign as anyone can possibly have that the show will fail. The two series (The Ropers and Detective School) fell out of the Top 50 the following week with Detective School being cancelled at the end of November. The Ropers should have met the same fate, but the series didn't, the question is why, the evidence speaks for itself, and as I noted before Fell was aware of what happened and was vocal about it.

I do think Norman and Audra got a raw deal. ABC probably realized by October/November that the show wasn't going to last. They should have cancelled it right there and brought them back to Three's Company.

Maybe the way they went about the spinoff was all wrong. What about something like this: keep them in the Three's Company apartment but show what they're doing when they're not interacting with Jack, Janet and Chrissy. They could show them conversing with other tenants of the building, or on their own in their apartment. Every once in a while Jack, Janet and Chrissy could pop in.

This sort of thing could have worked...think Sam Drucker on Petticoat Junction and Green Acres, but in the same setting...or Oscar Goldman on Six Million Dollar Man and Bionic Woman.

If they'd done it that way, maybe it could have lasted a while.

(for some reason this may have been posted twice, for some reason).

You said:

"ABC probably realized by October/November that the show wasn't going to last".

They realized in September, with the firepower in that first episode (appearance by Jack, Chrissy and Janet) up against a CHIPS rerun and a show that finished 55 out of 57 series that week, to stagger home in 37th place for the week told anyone looking all they needed to know. The next week the show dropped to 52!

You said:

"Maybe the way they went about the spinoff was all wrong".

The characters were not ready to be placed in their own series. An older middle-aged couple, retired, childless what were supposed to do that would get people to tune in. The Ropers back and forth had to be softened, by themselves they were all each other had to cling to, what was once funny now would be hurtful. Before they were put into a spinoff needed additional fleshing out , more of a backstory and something to do in this new series. What happened didn't make any sense that's why it needs to be examined.

I do think Norman and Audra got a raw deal. ABC probably realized by October/November that the show wasn't going to last. They should have cancelled it right there and brought them back to Three's Company.

Maybe the way they went about the spinoff was all wrong. What about something like this: keep them in the Three's Company apartment but show what they're doing when they're not interacting with Jack, Janet and Chrissy. They could show them conversing with other tenants of the building, or on their own in their apartment. Every once in a while Jack, Janet and Chrissy could pop in.

This sort of thing could have worked...think Sam Drucker on Petticoat Junction and Green Acres, but in the same setting...or Oscar Goldman on Six Million Dollar Man and Bionic Woman.

If they'd done it that way, maybe it could have lasted a while.


They should have realized it by September because after the first episode of season 2 with Jack Janet and Chrissy as guests, the show wasnt even in the top 30, it was ranked 37th. So lots of Three's company fans already decided by that point that they had no intentions on watching the show

Sorry it took so long to get back to this but there are a lot of issues here so it will take a little time.

Let's start here:

Even with Suzanne being the biggest star no one ever suggested that Ritter wanted Suzanne off the show.

I'm not sure where this is coming from, how was Somers a bigger star than Ritter going into the series. He had a recurring role on The Waltons and had done a lot of TV prior to Three's Company, checks their credits, it's close but I would give him the clear edge.

You said

"no one ever suggested that Ritter wanted Suzanne off the show".

Ritter wanted the scripts focused on his character, Somers and her husband were smart business people they knew what was going on, so the battlelines were drawn. She was not going to stay on the show serving John's character, things could have been worked out, but this was an either or situation and John had the upper hand.

You said:

"The Ropers actually facilitated his comedy".

The characters were getting over, breakout characters, John wanted the show focused on his character, when the show was talked about, written about, he wanted to be the subject of that publicity. You want proof, take a look at every change and ask yourself who benefitted from the change.

You said

"This issue I see is you are looking back with what you know now. I view things as they were in real time in 1979".

Actually the opposite is occurring, I'm trying to recreate the real time process as it actually took place. Network people pour over ratings in real time, in other words the week by week performance of a show is much more important to them than the overall season number. By the time the show finished it's initial run (March-April) several things were clear and the network acted on the information. The three new series that the network thought most highly of were scheduled with the supports around them that gave those series the best shot at success (I've covered all that). The Ropers were placed on Saturday with no supports a clear sign the network had very little faith in the series. I discussed Fell's reaction to this move, let me add one more piece, Fell indicated the network retained the series for the season to meet the cancellation stipulation in Fell contract (if the series was cancelled in less than a year the characters would be brought back to Three's Company).

To conclude, the season 2 episode 1 rating was devastating, against a CHIPS rerun, and a series opener on CBS that finished third from last and with Jack, Chrissy and Janet as guest characters the show finished 37. It even finished worse than Detective School the series on after it. If you're looking at ratings in real time that's as clear a sign as anyone can possibly have that the show will fail. The two series (The Ropers and Detective School) fell out of the Top 50 the following week with Detective School being cancelled at the end of November. The Ropers should have met the same fate, but the series didn't, the question is why, the evidence speaks for itself, and as I noted before Fell was aware of what happened and was vocal about it.
I am not going to respond to you anymore because you keep making stuff up. I never said that Sommers was a bigger star coming into the show. Of course Ritter had another TV show under his belt. However its not even in dispute that Sommers blossomed into the star of the show. This is why she wanted a raise. Her and her husband counted the number of magazine covers she was on. Her stardom created friction on the set.
You want to dissect posts and insert your opinion which is fine but I wont partake anymore.
You still provide NO SOURCE for your wild accusations about the show that have never been reported by ANYONE connected to the show. Yet you keep inserting your opinion as fact. Then when confronted you sort of backtrack what you originally said. Its not in dispute the show was created with the character Jack as the central character. Everyone knows that. But everything you say after that is FALSE. He never lobbied to get the Ropers off the show. The Ropers were supporting characters. You can still be the central character and have a supporting cast.
Again you are trying to mix up the equation. The purpose of this thread is SEASON 1 ratings, not season 2 ratings. Yet you are now focusing on Season 2 ratings. Again, no one disputes season 2 ratings were bad and getting worse.
The facts are after season 1, ABC really thought they had a hit on their hands.

I am not going to respond to you anymore because you keep making stuff up. I never said that Sommers was a bigger star coming into the show. Of course Ritter had another TV show under his belt. However its not even in dispute that Sommers blossomed into the star of the show. This is why she wanted a raise. Her and her husband counted the number of magazine covers she was on. Her stardom created friction on the set.
You want to dissect posts and insert your opinion which is fine but I wont partake anymore.
You still provide NO SOURCE for your wild accusations about the show that have never been reported by ANYONE connected to the show. Yet you keep inserting your opinion as fact. Then when confronted you sort of backtrack what you originally said. Its not in dispute the show was created with the character Jack as the central character. Everyone knows that. But everything you say after that is FALSE. He never lobbied to get the Ropers off the show. The Ropers were supporting characters. You can still be the central character and have a supporting cast.
Again you are trying to mix up the equation. The purpose of this thread is SEASON 1 ratings, not season 2 ratings. Yet you are now focusing on Season 2 ratings. Again, no one disputes season 2 ratings were bad and getting worse.
The facts are after season 1, ABC really thought they had a hit on their hands.

I'm going to get right to the point:

Your Opinion:

"The facts are after season 1, ABC really thought they had a hit on their hands".

This is an example of you giving your opinion and designating it a fact. We know that's not true and I've already walked you through it. Let's recap the new series coming on board:

ABC really thought they had a hit on their hands with Angie, that's why they placed it at 8:30 between mega hits Happy Days (3) and Three's Company (2).

ABC really thought they had a hit with The Associates that's why they placed that series on heavily viewed Sunday night at 8:30 behind Mork & Mindy(3) and the Sunday movie (15).

ABC really thought they had a hit with another spinoff this time from Soap.
Benson was scheduled on Thursdays at 8:30, between Laverne and Shirley (1) and Barney Miller (15), and rounding out the card, Soap (19) the mother series.

So we know the series ABC thought were the best bets to be hits they were supported and strategically scheduled, how you can argue this is beyond me, the facts are right there. The Ropers were dumped into the black hole on the ABC schedule 8pm Saturday night, I won't waste your time or any of the readers time listing the shows ABC ran into and out of this time slot since the early 70's. I've already mentioned this but I'll repeat it, the star of the series Norman Fell flew across country on his own dime to meet with the ABC executives to beg them not to do this.

Your Opinion:

'However its not even in dispute that Sommers blossomed into the star of the show".

This is an opinion not a fact! Chrissy and The Ropers were breakout characters, I never thought of Chrissy as the star of the show, I thought of the three as making more or less equal contributions until the show turned into Jack and Company.


Your Opinion

"The purpose of this thread is SEASON 1 ratings"

The title of the thread is in fact "Deeper look into the Ropers season 1 ratings"

That was done, in my previous responses here comes some facts:

The show lost a third of its audience from episode 1 to episode 2 and half the audience it started with by the 5th episode.

You didn't mention any of that of course and then you brought up the summer ratings here comes another opinion:

"ABC reran the episodes over the summer of 1979 (in August on Sundays) where they continued to achieve high ratings leading many to believe that the series would enjoy a long run".

Four episodes were run from mid August to Labor Day weekend, during that period the show went from 23, to 27 and finished at 32, that's not good news that's bad news and consistent with what we saw during the first run.

The second season opening episodes are important because they illustrate the continued downward trend of the series that after only 8 episodes settled outside the top 50.

That brings me to the final fact you choose to ignore, again Norman Fell said himself that ABC kept the series on the air so the return clause in his contract could not be exercised.

You can accept the established history, that's your business, there are too many inconsistencies, you don't see them or for some reason you don't want to see them. Fell saw them and asked questions that were never answered.

Someone wanted The Ropers off that series, I think it's clear, based on everything else that happened surrounding this series, the mother series and Three's a Crowd, the sign points in the direction of John Ritter.

:crazy: