This is why The Ropers got their own show

[DORVID]

Originally Posted by Duster76

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]

Originally Posted by BestTVever

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.

Im still trying to find out why they agreed to do a guest appearance a year later after being told they couldnt come back on the show

[BestTVever]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

Im still trying to find out why they agreed to do a guest appearance a year later after being told they couldnt come back on the show

I saw an Audrey interview that was in the mid 80s and she said it was really nice to go back and have closure.
I thought it was great to have the Ropers and Furley in the same apartment for an episode. I thought it was a cool idea. ABC yanked the Ropers without a goodbye episode so IMHO it was a nice gesture to have them back for an episode.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by BestTVever

I saw an Audrey interview that was in the mid 80s and she said it was really nice to go back and have closure.
I thought it was great to have the Ropers and Furley in the same apartment for an episode. I thought it was a cool idea. ABC yanked the Ropers without a goodbye episode so IMHO it was a nice gesture to have them back for an episode.

But it wasnt really closure because they was still living in the same area. They could have said they was in town to visit their mom and moved out of state. But it was believed they lived in the same area as they did in season 7 and 8 like they did in season 4 and 5 of TC lol

Same thing with furley. It didnt say he was going anywhere in the last episode so why couldnt he guest star like Larry one time