How Angry Was Norman Fell At Audrey Lindley For Making Him Do The “Ropers” Spin-Off - Page 2 - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

TVFactFan · 08-12-2021, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SitcomsHeydayfan

I saw a documentary on TC that stated early on in the show after such great ratings they tore up their contracts & gave John a raise to $50K per episode & the girls a raise to $30K an episode.

But the Ropers coming back was in Season 5 so I thought by then with the seniority they had it could be that much. How little you think they made for their guest spot??

I want to research that because I always wanted to know how the producers got them to do a guest spot

BestTVever · 08-13-2021, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

I want to research that because I always wanted to know how the producers got them to do a guest spot

I am not sure why anyone would think it was odd for the Ropers to appear on TC after the Ropers was cancelled. They threw them a bone and it was nice to see them again. ABC did the same thing for Roper's neighbor. After the Ropers cancellation, he made 3 guest appearances playing various roles. In the 1982 Audra interview on Youtube she said she was honored and it was fun to come back and do that episode and see everyone again. I dont think their appearance needs an explanation. It was fun.

TVFactFan · 08-13-2021, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BestTVever

I am not sure why anyone would think it was odd for the Ropers to appear on TC after the Ropers was cancelled. They threw them a bone and it was nice to see them again. ABC did the same thing for Roper's neighbor. After the Ropers cancellation, he made 3 guest appearances playing various roles. In the 1982 Audra interview on Youtube she said she was honored and it was fun to come back and do that episode and see everyone again. I dont think their appearance needs an explanation. It was fun.

Jeffery Tambor was only a supporting character so he was glad to get more work. In the case of Norman and Audra, they was told they were denied a steady income and later offered a one time guest shot

BestTVever · 08-14-2021, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

Jeffery Tambor was only a supporting character so he was glad to get more work. In the case of Norman and Audra, they was told they were denied a steady income and later offered a one time guest shot

No one forced them to go. The money was good enough to go to their own series. They knew sitcoms get cancelled but they probably doubled their money and thought even a few seasons we are better off.
There were way too much cast changes with Suzanne leaving, the Ropers leaving, and Ralph the new landlord to bring them back. If the new landlord flopped then maybe but it worked out really good. They also could have refused to do the guest appearance. Everyone got what they wanted. But clearly you cant have it all....all the time

SitcomsHeydayfan · 08-15-2021, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BestTVever

I am not sure why anyone would think it was odd for the Ropers to appear on TC after the Ropers was cancelled. They threw them a bone and it was nice to see them again. ABC did the same thing for Roper's neighbor. After the Ropers cancellation, he made 3 guest appearances playing various roles. In the 1982 Audra interview on Youtube she said she was honored and it was fun to come back and do that episode and see everyone again. I dont think their appearance needs an explanation. It was fun.

Plus they both got a payday when acting jobs for people their age isn't easy. I'm sure they knew, like we all do, that work in Hollywood is never guaranteed!

TMC · 02-09-2022, 03:28 AM

Quote:

He didn't want to do it! He really didn't! But after the third season of Three's Company, Norman Fell and Audra Lindley left their hit TV series. Watch this video to learn more about their decision and what happened next!

TVFactFan · 02-09-2022, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMC

old news

JR1 · 03-02-2022, 01:05 PM

Supposedly, the contract stating they could return to TC was for one year. Fell believed ABC had planned to cancel the show after its first full season, but waited until after the full year had passed, so they wouldn't be locked in to return to TC.

TVFactFan · 03-02-2022, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR1

Supposedly, the contract stating they could return to TC was for one year. Fell believed ABC had planned to cancel the show after its first full season, but waited until after the full year had passed, so they wouldn't be locked in to return to TC.

He should have known they wasnt coming when a new landlord was in his apt lol

JR1 · 03-03-2022, 11:34 AM

You would think.

Also- maybe there were financial stipulations in the contract, too- like, if the show was cancelled within that year, they'd get financial compensation if they didn't return to TC.

TVFactFan · 03-03-2022, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR1

You would think.

Also- maybe there were financial stipulations in the contract, too- like, if the show was cancelled within that year, they'd get financial compensation if they didn't return to TC.

I still would like to know why they felt the need to change the landlord. Something I will never know the answer to. Like why was it so important to get someone OPPOSITE of Roper

03-02-2022, 01:05 PM	#23
JR1 Member Forum Regular Join Date: Mar 07, 2009 Location: USA Posts: 742	Supposedly, the contract stating they could return to TC was for one year. Fell believed ABC had planned to cancel the show after its first full season, but waited until after the full year had passed, so they wouldn't be locked in to return to TC.

03-03-2022, 11:34 AM	#25
JR1 Member Forum Regular Join Date: Mar 07, 2009 Location: USA Posts: 742	You would think. Also- maybe there were financial stipulations in the contract, too- like, if the show was cancelled within that year, they'd get financial compensation if they didn't return to TC.