Deeper look into the Ropers season 1 ratings

[BestTVever]

Originally Posted by icecream

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.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by BestTVever

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

[BestTVever]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

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.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by BestTVever

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

[Duster76]

Originally Posted by icecream

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.

[Duster76]

Originally Posted by BestTVever

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.

[BestTVever]

Originally Posted by Duster76

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.

[Dianne3]

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.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by Dianne3

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

[Duster76]

Originally Posted by Dianne3

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.

[BestTVever]

Originally Posted by Duster76

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"

[torcan]

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.

[torcan]

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).

[BestTVever]

Originally Posted by torcan

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.

[Duster76]

Originally Posted by BestTVever

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.