Do You Think 'The Ropers' Were Too Old to Star in Their Own Spinoff???

[Dr. Thong]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

That was always my problem with Furley,,,,,,,,He was the OPPOSITE of Roper

Well, I give them credit for not having a similar character to replace Roper....that's the easy way out.

But I didn't care for Furley, so it didn't matter to me much.

I wish the Ropers could have come back.

[704Hauser]

Originally Posted by JT

The Ropers were fine as leading characters, IMO, but the Jeffrey, Anne, and David weren't the best characters for them to bounce off of. That premise worked well for "George & Mildred" because that was a pretty run-of-the-mill sitcom set-up in England in the 70s, but I think they should have tweaked it a bit for the US.

Instead of the Ropers' neighbors being a younger couple, maybe it could have been a glamorous, lusty, bitchy woman who was only a few years younger than them and could trade barbs with Stanley while being a close friend for Helen. And like TC had the Regal Beagle, The Ropers could have had a central meeting place, like a neighborhood country club or something, and the Jeffrey Brooks character could have appeared mainly in that setting.

Anne really added no comedy to the show at all. She was a lot like Carol on "Maude," there to just add some sex appeal and hipness to a pretty unsexy/unhip show. David, I liked, especially when they'd do the bit where Jeffrey tries to be funny but David just stares at him. The sad thing is that the blank stare he did was really the only acting the kid could do.

Really, though, I think The Ropers failed mainly because of the time change. It pulled in great ratings in the spring of '79, but putting it up against CHiPs was too much.

Regarding your comment on The Ropers having a central meeting place, George & Mildred often featured scenes with George and Jeffrey conversing (or often not) at the local pub.