This is why The Ropers got their own show

[BestTVever]

With scenes like this it was common for The Ropers to get the biggest laughs in Threes Company episodes. In many of the Threes Company series, the episode would often begin in the Roper's apartment for banter like this. I don't recall any Threes Company episodes that began in Mr Furley's apartment. Mr Furley needed a partner to play off to be funny. The Ropers had each other and they would often have the funniest or best lines of the episode.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/j_VyfXpmhCc

[Duster76]

The primary reason the Ropers got their own show is the need to get them off Three's Company. It's not uncommon for stars to be territorial on their series and unfortunately John Ritter fell into that category. John wanted the focus to be on his character, anyone who interfered with that found themselves outside looking in. Fell, Lindley, Somers, Harrison all got dispatched. Priscilla Barnes was essentially the blond version of Janet so the two female roommates became interchangeable. John wanted to be the star of the series, the face of the series, the reason the series was funny, the reason series was successful.

The Ropers were DOA in their own series, a retired, childless, middle aged couple living in an apartment how was that going to get over. Three's Company had young demos, so The Ropers are moved to Saturday night, the night that had the oldest demos, in other words, the very people who were most familiar with the characters were the people most likely not to be watching television on that night of the week!

The back and forth between the two of them as illustrated in your clip had to be toned down on their own series. Out and about with Janet, Chrissy and Jack they could let it fly, but alone with only each other to cling to the rough give and take turns from funny to hurtful.

[BestTVever]

Originally Posted by Duster76

The primary reason the Ropers got their own show is the need to get them off Three's Company. It's not uncommon for stars to be territorial on their series and unfortunately John Ritter fell into that category. John wanted the focus to be on his character, anyone who interfered with that found themselves outside looking in. Fell, Lindley, Somers, Harrison all got dispatched. Priscilla Barnes was essentially the blond version of Janet so the two female roommates became interchangeable. John wanted to be the star of the series, the face of the series, the reason the series was funny, the reason series was successful.

The Ropers were DOA in their own series, a retired, childless, middle aged couple living in an apartment how was that going to get over. Three's Company had young demos, so The Ropers are moved to Saturday night, the night that had the oldest demos, in other words, the very people who were most familiar with the characters were the people most likely not to be watching television on that night of the week!

The back and forth between the two of them as illustrated in your clip had to be toned down on their own series. Out and about with Janet, Chrissy and Jack they could let it fly, but alone with only each other to cling to the rough give and take turns from funny to hurtful.

We will have to agree to disagree because much of what you say its not true. Your point that sometimes networks want to get someone off a show may be true in some cases, it was not with Threes Company. Threes Company was a top rated show at #2 its first year. The network was already planning a spin off and offered the Ropers their own show in the second season. They turned it down because it was too early and the show itself was still getting its footing. When TC still dominated the ratings after season 3 they finally agreed. They were hysterical and ABC thought they could have success. They saw a Laverne and Shirley coming from Happy Days. They were supporting characters and no threat to John Ritter.

[Duster76]

BestTVever said:

"We will have to agree to disagree because much of what you say its not true. Your point that sometimes networks want to get someone off a show may be true in some cases, it was not with Threes Company. Threes Company was a top rated show at #2 its first year. The network was already planning a spin off and offered the Ropers their own show in the second season. They turned it down because it was too early and the show itself was still getting its footing. When TC still dominated the ratings after season 3 they finally agreed. They were hysterical and ABC thought they could have success. They saw a Laverne and Shirley coming from Happy Days. They were supporting characters and no threat to John Ritter."

I'd like to respond to some of your comments, but not in the same order they were presented.

Let's start with the very last comment

"They were supporting characters and no threat to John Ritter."

That's your opinion, the evidence is pretty clear that was not John's opinion. I gave you example after example. You yourself showed a clip where the Ropers got a comedy bit over without John being involved, believe it or not some stars don't like things like that. They want want the funny stuff to come from them. Go research The Danny Kaye Show and you'll see what a miserable time people had working with him. If anyone other than Danny was getting over in a bit, the bit would be rewritten. Joey Bishop was the same way.

Let's take a look at this comment:

"Your point that sometimes networks want to get someone off a show"

I didn't say the network wanted to get the Ropers off the show, John wanted them off the show. The network obviously didn't believe in the show, the first few episodes were scheduled at 10pm after the season had concluded, how many successful comedy series have been scheduled at 10pm at night. This time slot was held for news programming, dramatic series, variety shows. They moved it to 8pm on Saturday against the hit series CHIPS. Norman Fell on his own dime flew across country to meet with ABC executives to beg them not move the show. What part of this are you disputing?

Let's take a look at this comment:

"They were hysterical and ABC thought they could have success. They saw a Laverne and Shirley coming from Happy Days.

First, Laverne and Shirley were not actually part of Happy Days they were introduced to the audience in Happy Days for the purposes of putting them into their own series. The Happy Days/Laverne and Shirley coupling made perfect sense, two similarly themed series running one right after the other. The producers of Three's Company were offered an opportunity to produce another half hour series due to the success of Three's Company, it would have made perfect sense to develop another youth oriented show around a group of younger people (maybe introduce those characters at the Regal Beagle), but The Ropers was clearly not the way to go. Fell wanted a stipulation placed in his contract that he could return to the mother series and that was refused.

The facts are in front of you, I will conclude this way, every change that occurred on Three's Company benefitted one person at the expense of all the others and that person was John Ritter. That's crystal clear, dispute it if you like but please give something more than opinion.

[Dianne3]

I don't know much about this but with TC being a similar show to a show made in Britain, I read somewhere that characters on that British show got spinoffs. If that was the case, than that I why I say The Ropers got a spinoff.

I don't think John Ritter had that much say in the early years of TC, since it was the Chrissy character that got more episodes centered around her than Jack or Janet.

[Duster76]

Originally Posted by Dianne3

I don't know much about this but with TC being a similar show to a show made in Britain, I read somewhere that characters on that British show got spinoffs. If that was the case, than that I why I say The Ropers got a spinoff.

I don't think John Ritter had that much say in the early years of TC, since it was the Chrissy character that got more episodes centered around her than Jack or Janet.

The shows you're referring to are Man About the House (Three's Company, British version) and the spin-off George and Mildred (The Ropers, British version). I'll focus my comments on George and Mildred.

To begin with while it is true George and Mildred was a spin-off, like Frasier is to Cheers, the spin-off occurred at the conclusion of Man About the House. George and Mildred were more than a decade younger than American counterparts Stanley and Helen, this is important to note, ABC's surprising ascension to the top of the Nielsen ratings was built on programming shows that appealed to younger viewers. The mores of British society are much different than America, the premise of a low brow (for lack of a better term) couple moving into an upscale community is a much stronger premise for a show in Britain than the United States. I would ask that you strongly consider the fact that the network offered no support for the show (which I detailed in my prior comments), clearly The Ropers would never have been given the greenlight unless other things had to be taken into consideration.

You said:

"I don't think John Ritter had that much say in the early years of TC, since it was the Chrissy character that got more episodes centered around her than Jack or Janet".

I don't agree with these comments. John obviously had a great deal of input, he was the "star", he was making twice what Somers and DeWitt were making, and as I said originally every change made to the show accommodated him at the expense of everyone else. The early seasons did not favor Chrissy over the other cast members, please take a look at the early seasons again.

[rusty spike]

Is it possible that John wanted and expected more $$$ year after year as TC rose in the ratings?

Just suggesting that the Ropers were two salaries vs one by bringing in Don Knotts. I also think that Don was looking for work and he probably was very affordable.

[Dianne3]

Originally Posted by Duster76

The shows you're referring to are Man About the House (Three's Company, British version) and the spin-off George and Mildred (The Ropers, British version). I'll focus my comments on George and Mildred.

To begin with while it is true George and Mildred was a spin-off, like Frasier is to Cheers, the spin-off occurred at the conclusion of Man About the House. George and Mildred were more than a decade younger than American counterparts Stanley and Helen, this is important to note, ABC's surprising ascension to the top of the Nielsen ratings was built on programming shows that appealed to younger viewers. The mores of British society are much different than America, the premise of a low brow (for lack of a better term) couple moving into an upscale community is a much stronger premise for a show in Britain than the United States. I would ask that you strongly consider the fact that the network offered no support for the show (which I detailed in my prior comments), clearly The Ropers would never have been given the greenlight unless other things had to be taken into consideration.

You said:

"I don't think John Ritter had that much say in the early years of TC, since it was the Chrissy character that got more episodes centered around her than Jack or Janet".

I don't agree with these comments. John obviously had a great deal of input, he was the "star", he was making twice what Somers and DeWitt were making, and as I said originally every change made to the show accommodated him at the expense of everyone else. The early seasons did not favor Chrissy over the other cast members, please take a look at the early seasons again.

[Dianne3]

First, I only meant to highlight the bottom paragraph. Everything concerning the British Show is new info for me.

According to these message boards, I've seen conflicting information on how much more John Ritter was making than the females. That I can't comment on. What I can comment on is when TC started he deserved to be paid more because he had more on his acting resume than Suzanne and Joyce. Yes, the 3 had great chemistry but both Suzanne and Joyce was not that great actresses. John could act. I'm referring to his dramatic roles in the early 1970's.

[Duster76]

Originally Posted by Dianne3

First, I only meant to highlight the bottom paragraph. Everything concerning the British Show is new info for me.

According to these message boards, I've seen conflicting information on how much more John Ritter was making than the females. That I can't comment on. What I can comment on is when TC started he deserved to be paid more because he had more on his acting resume than Suzanne and Joyce. Yes, the 3 had great chemistry but both Suzanne and Joyce was not that great actresses. John could act. I'm referring to his dramatic roles in the early 1970's.

OK but your original comment suggested he didn't have much input into Three's Company, let's take a look:

"I don't think John Ritter had that much say in the early years of TC"

The producers considered him the star and he was a star who wanted to be the star of the series, the face of the series, the reason the series was funny, the reason series was successful. That's why Fell and Lindley found themselves off the series with no way back.

[Duster76]

Originally Posted by rusty spike

Is it possible that John wanted and expected more $$$ year after year as TC rose in the ratings?

Just suggesting that the Ropers were two salaries vs one by bringing in Don Knotts. I also think that Don was looking for work and he probably was very affordable.

I have to be honest, I think John saw this as his starring vehicle, the jumping off point to his career as an "A" lister. In addition, Don may have been in a stronger negotiating position than would appear on the surface. You're right he did need steady work, and his second marriage was a struggle, it featured a wife 20 years younger who liked to get out and about and that can be expensive (the marriage would end in 1983), but on the other hand Don had a unique skill set very much sought after by the producers. Lets take a look:

1. Popular, beloved entertainer by baby boomers and their parents.

2. He also (and I can't emphasize how important this was) had the ability to get his comedy over without stepping on the toes of the star of the show he was on. He did this on The Steve Allen Show, and The Andy Griffith Show.

3. If the inevitable happened and The Ropers was not a success, he was an iron curtain against them returning.

4. The producers may have hoped he could help stabilize the problems that were happening behind the scenes with Somers. In an interview years later Don stated he understood exactly what Suzanne was going through.

I have wondered from time to time if Lucy who was friendly with John may have suggested Don.

[BestTVever]

Originally Posted by Duster76

BestTVever said:

"We will have to agree to disagree because much of what you say its not true. Your point that sometimes networks want to get someone off a show may be true in some cases, it was not with Threes Company. Threes Company was a top rated show at #2 its first year. The network was already planning a spin off and offered the Ropers their own show in the second season. They turned it down because it was too early and the show itself was still getting its footing. When TC still dominated the ratings after season 3 they finally agreed. They were hysterical and ABC thought they could have success. They saw a Laverne and Shirley coming from Happy Days. They were supporting characters and no threat to John Ritter."

I'd like to respond to some of your comments, but not in the same order they were presented.

Let's start with the very last comment

"They were supporting characters and no threat to John Ritter."

That's your opinion, the evidence is pretty clear that was not John's opinion. I gave you example after example. You yourself showed a clip where the Ropers got a comedy bit over without John being involved, believe it or not some stars don't like things like that. They want want the funny stuff to come from them. Go research The Danny Kaye Show and you'll see what a miserable time people had working with him. If anyone other than Danny was getting over in a bit, the bit would be rewritten. Joey Bishop was the same way.

Let's take a look at this comment:

"Your point that sometimes networks want to get someone off a show"

I didn't say the network wanted to get the Ropers off the show, John wanted them off the show. The network obviously didn't believe in the show, the first few episodes were scheduled at 10pm after the season had concluded, how many successful comedy series have been scheduled at 10pm at night. This time slot was held for news programming, dramatic series, variety shows. They moved it to 8pm on Saturday against the hit series CHIPS. Norman Fell on his own dime flew across country to meet with ABC executives to beg them not move the show. What part of this are you disputing?

Let's take a look at this comment:

"They were hysterical and ABC thought they could have success. They saw a Laverne and Shirley coming from Happy Days.

First, Laverne and Shirley were not actually part of Happy Days they were introduced to the audience in Happy Days for the purposes of putting them into their own series. The Happy Days/Laverne and Shirley coupling made perfect sense, two similarly themed series running one right after the other. The producers of Three's Company were offered an opportunity to produce another half hour series due to the success of Three's Company, it would have made perfect sense to develop another youth oriented show around a group of younger people (maybe introduce those characters at the Regal Beagle), but The Ropers was clearly not the way to go. Fell wanted a stipulation placed in his contract that he could return to the mother series and that was refused.

The facts are in front of you, I will conclude this way, every change that occurred on Three's Company benefitted one person at the expense of all the others and that person was John Ritter. That's crystal clear, dispute it if you like but please give something more than opinion.

You keep presenting your opinion as fact. John Ritter was not one cent jealous of Stanley and Helen Roper. ABC was about making money and the popularity of TC and the landlords made a spin off a common sense approach.
So John was jealous of Don Knots too? He was a top notch TV guy with a longer list of credentials than Ritter. He was having his cake and eating it too on TC. He was laughing his way to the bank being the top paid actor on the show. The more they made, the more he made. Ritter was asked on the Conan show in the 1990s who he preferred as the landlord, Furley or Roper. He said it was close but had better comedic timing with Norman Fell and preferred him. In all of the Threes Company behind the scenes and books it has never been reported once that Ritter wanted the Ropers off the show. That is a fairy tale.
Lastly, it was the norm during a top rated sitcom for the network to push for a spin off with one of the characters. Sometimes it worked and many times it failed. It would have been against the grain for ABC not to want to launch a spin off of Threes Company. The Ropers had huge ratings its first mini season. All the top rated shows like All In The Family, The Jeffersons, Mary Tyler Moore all created spin offs for characters on the show. Threes Company was no exception. The banter between the Ropers was hilarious.

[Duster76]

Originally Posted by BestTVever

You keep presenting your opinion as fact. John Ritter was not one cent jealous of Stanley and Helen Roper. ABC was about making money and the popularity of TC and the landlords made a spin off a common sense approach.
So John was jealous of Don Knots too? He was a top notch TV guy with a longer list of credentials than Ritter. He was having his cake and eating it too on TC. He was laughing his way to the bank being the top paid actor on the show. The more they made, the more he made. Ritter was asked on the Conan show in the 1990s who he preferred as the landlord, Furley or Roper. He said it was close but had better comedic timing with Norman Fell and preferred him. In all of the Threes Company behind the scenes and books it has never been reported once that Ritter wanted the Ropers off the show. That is a fairy tale.
Lastly, it was the norm during a top rated sitcom for the network to push for a spin off with one of the characters. Sometimes it worked and many times it failed. It would have been against the grain for ABC not to want to launch a spin off of Threes Company. The Ropers had huge ratings its first mini season. All the top rated shows like All In The Family, The Jeffersons, Mary Tyler Moore all created spin offs for characters on the show. Threes Company was no exception. The banter between the Ropers was hilarious.

There's a great deal to go over, so let me start:

"You keep presenting your opinion as fact".

Wrong, I'm presenting facts and reaching conclusions based on those facts. Let's take a look:

You said:

"ABC was about making money and the popularity of TC and the landlords made a spin off a common sense approach".

Here's what I actually said:

"The network obviously didn't believe in the show, the first few episodes were scheduled at 10pm after the season had concluded, how many successful comedy series have been scheduled at 10pm at night. This time slot was held for news programming, dramatic series, variety shows. They moved it to 8pm on Saturday against the hit series CHIPS. Norman Fell on his own dime flew across country to meet with ABC executives to beg them not move the show".
Further, "Fell wanted a stipulation placed in his contract that he could return to the mother series and that was refused". "What part of this are you disputing?"

But it doesn't end there, let's look at the additional facts I presented to reach the conclusion I reached:

The Ropers were DOA in their own series, a retired, childless, middle aged couple living in an apartment how was that going to get over. Three's Company had young demos, so The Ropers are moved to Saturday night, the night that had the oldest demos, in other words, the very people who were most familiar with the characters were the people most likely not to be watching television on that night of the week!

The network clearly did not believe in the show from that start, that conclusion is based on the facts. If you have some actual facts to counter these conclusions then present them.

You said:

"Ritter was not one cent jealous of Stanley and Helen Roper."

I never said he was.

What I said was this:

"The primary reason the Ropers got their own show is the need to get them off Three's Company. It's not uncommon for stars to be territorial on their series and unfortunately John Ritter fell into that category. John wanted the focus to be on his character, anyone who interfered with that found themselves outside looking in. Fell, Lindley, Somers, Harrison all got dispatched. Priscilla Barnes was essentially the blond version of Janet so the two female roommates became interchangeable. John wanted to be the star of the series, the face of the series, the reason the series was funny, the reason series was successful".

To sum all that up, John as the star wanted the series to be about his character, how Jack deals with two female roommates and their various situations, how Jack deals with his landlords, how Jack deals with his best friend, how Jack deals with his love interests, how Jack deals with his budding career as a chef. This type of thing happens on shows all the time, nothing new here.

You said:

"So John was jealous of Don Knots too?"


This is what I wrote about Don Knott's (please read it carefully):

Don had a unique skill set very much sought after by the producers. Lets take a look:

1. Popular, beloved entertainer by baby boomers and their parents.

2. He also (and I can't emphasize how important this was) had the ability to get his comedy over without stepping on the toes of the star of the show he was on. He did this on The Steve Allen Show, and The Andy Griffith Show.

3. If the inevitable happened and The Ropers was not a success, he was an iron curtain against them returning.

4. The producers may have hoped he could help stabilize the problems that were happening behind the scenes with Somers. In an interview years later Don stated he understood exactly what Suzanne was going through.

I have wondered from time to time if Lucy who was friendly with John may have suggested Don.

This is why Don was on the show, it's naïve to think otherwise.


You said:

"Ritter was asked on the Conan show in the 1990s who he preferred as the landlord, Furley or Roper. He said it was close but had better comedic timing with Norman Fell and preferred him".

Fell and Lindley were great, and the Stanley Roper character was a much finer tuned character than the funny but rather cartoonish Ralph Furley, I think most agree on that. The answer Ritter gave is correct, he always knew how to get over in public, that's part of what being a star is all about. I mentioned Danny Kaye in earlier response to you in this thread, he was beloved by the public always came across as a great guy, behind the scenes he was a first class prick based on the many statements made about him behind the scenes.

I'll close with this:

You said:

"The banter between the Ropers was hilarious".

Yes, on Three's Company it's funny, but here is the problem:

"The back and forth between the two of them as illustrated in your clip had to be toned down on their own series. Out and about with Janet, Chrissy and Jack they could let it fly, but alone with only each other to cling to the rough give and take turns from funny to hurtful".

This was one of the problems the show had. The Roper situation might have made a successful sitcom but it had to be developed more, they needed more characters and they needed something to do. Simply put, the characters weren't ready to be lead characters.

[TVFactFan]

The decision to spinoff off the Ropers was when TC first started. This was planned way before season 3 and had nothing to do with a episode

[BestTVever]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

The decision to spinoff off the Ropers was when TC first started. This was planned way before season 3 and had nothing to do with a episode

Exactly. In its first mini season, Threes Company rocketed to the top. Networks always looked for spin offs. Norman and Audrey turned down the offer of a spin off because they thought it was too soon. But when Threes Company ruled the ratings for 2 more years, the offer was too good.
If the network wanted to get rid of the Ropers, they would have never given them the option to come back after 1 season.