I just found out the real reason why the Ropers were in the Top Ten after season one - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

TVFactFan · 02-21-2004, 07:51 PM

I never paid attention to this but i found out that once the Ropers premeired on ABC in March of 1979, there was no more new episodes of Three's Company until the month of May which was after the Ropers first season was already completed. So TC fans probably paid more attention to the Ropers because Three's Company was all repeats and it was on Tuesdays nights and it was a Three's Company connection until TC had new episodes. Funny how i just found that out.

CCH · 03-29-2004, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TVShow Analyzer
I never paid attention to this but i found out that once the Ropers premeired on ABC in March of 1979, there was no more new episodes of Three's Company until the month of May which was after the Ropers first season was already completed. So TC fans probably paid more attention to the Ropers because Three's Company was all repeats and it was on Tuesdays nights and it was a Three's Company connection until TC had new episodes. Funny how i just found that out.

I think you need a job in TvLand

Edster2973 · 01-12-2005, 10:46 AM

I think you *might* be judging The Ropers too harshly (notice I said *might*... I concede that I *might* be wrong).

Nobody is going to argue and say that The Ropers was on an even par with Three's Company, but clearly the show had its merit. From what I understand, the show, for its second season, was moved to Sunday nights against the more popular Chips show, and the ratings sank.

Now, any of us can argue that had the show remained paired with Three's Company, The Ropers would have had a longer run. The fact that the ratings sank on a different night *might* indicate that The Ropers didn't have its own fanbase but inherited the spillover from Three's Company. This *might* be true. But consider this...

Suppose Three's Company had been moved to Sunday nights instead of The Ropers, would it have remained as strong in the ratings? It probably wouldn't have been cancelled, since it was one of ABC's cash cows (they would've switched it to another night), but my point is, even Three's Company would've suffered from being moved to that awful timeslot. Would anyone argue that this means Three's Company was an awful show?

Who knows how long The Ropers would've or should've lasted, but their bombing on Sunday nights is NOT a fair indication of how good or bad the show was. Many decent shows sink due to their unfortunate timeslots, just as many shows (that don't deserve to) make it because they're sandwiched in between hit shows or they're in a popular timeslot (a la Joey).

The Ropers wasn't meant to be Three's Company 2. It did have its own flavor and voice, just as The Jeffersons, Maude, Archie Bunker's Place and Good Times were different in voice and flavor from All in the Family. But clearly, the show should've been given a fairer shot at making it, and it wasn't. Whether the show was good or not is debatable, depending on one's taste, but that last statement is one thing that is fact. It wasn't treated fairly.

Ed

TVFactFan · 01-12-2005, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edster2973

I think you *might* be judging The Ropers too harshly (notice I said *might*... I concede that I *might* be wrong).

Nobody is going to argue and say that The Ropers was on an even par with Three's Company, but clearly the show had its merit. From what I understand, the show, for its second season, was moved to Sunday nights against the more popular Chips show, and the ratings sank.

Now, any of us can argue that had the show remained paired with Three's Company, The Ropers would have had a longer run. The fact that the ratings sank on a different night *might* indicate that The Ropers didn't have its own fanbase but inherited the spillover from Three's Company. This *might* be true. But consider this...

Suppose Three's Company had been moved to Sunday nights instead of The Ropers, would it have remained as strong in the ratings? It probably wouldn't have been cancelled, since it was one of ABC's cash cows (they would've switched it to another night), but my point is, even Three's Company would've suffered from being moved to that awful timeslot. Would anyone argue that this means Three's Company was an awful show?

Who knows how long The Ropers would've or should've lasted, but their bombing on Sunday nights is NOT a fair indication of how good or bad the show was. Many decent shows sink due to their unfortunate timeslots, just as many shows (that don't deserve to) make it because they're sandwiched in between hit shows or they're in a popular timeslot (a la Joey).

The Ropers wasn't meant to be Three's Company 2. It did have its own flavor and voice, just as The Jeffersons, Maude, Archie Bunker's Place and Good Times were different in voice and flavor from All in the Family. But clearly, the show should've been given a fairer shot at making it, and it wasn't. Whether the show was good or not is debatable, depending on one's taste, but that last statement is one thing that is fact. It wasn't treated fairly.

Ed

It was an OK show. Watchable but not a show you can look at over and over again. I just keep the show around because I'm a tape trader

Brian Damage · 06-28-2005, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RetroTVCollector

It was an OK show. Watchable but not a show you can look at over and over again. I just keep the show around because I'm a tape trader

I agree with that. It is an ok show, but overall not something worth continual viewing like Three's Company.

TVFactFan · 06-28-2005, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Damage

I agree with that. It is an ok show, but overall not something worth continual viewing like Three's Company.

Yeah the only Ropers eps I can watch over Are the ones when Larry, Jack, and the Girls appeared in.

Chain Gang Member · 09-01-2005, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edster2973

Would anyone argue that this means Three's Company was an awful show?
Ed

That is untrue statement.If TC wasn't a good show,it would've never became a success when The Ropers left or when Chrissy left.I guess Don Knotts,Jennilee Harrison and Priscilla Barnes did such a great job at being Mr.Furley,Cindy Snow and Terri Alden that they kept the show on for 5 more years which is when they ran out of ideas for new episodes and decided to end it in September of 1984

TVFactFan · 09-01-2005, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chain Gang Member

That is untrue statement.If TC wasn't a good show,it would've never became a success when The Ropers left or when Chrissy left.I guess Don Knotts,Jennilee Harrison and Priscilla Barnes did such a great job at being Mr.Furley,Cindy Snow and Terri Alden that they kept the show on for 5 more years which is when they ran out of ideas for new episodes and decided to end it in September of 1984

He wasn't saying TC was a bad show, he was saying would it have been considered a bad show if it was moved to a Saturday or Sunday Night Time slot like ABC did with the Ropers.

Jeek · 09-10-2005, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RetroTVCollector

I never paid attention to this but i found out that once the Ropers premeired on ABC in March of 1979, there was no more new episodes of Three's Company until the month of May which was after the Ropers first season was already completed. So TC fans probably paid more attention to the Ropers because Three's Company was all repeats and it was on Tuesdays nights and it was a Three's Company connection until TC had new episodes. Funny how i just found that out.

You're an idiot.

Jeek · 09-10-2005, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chain Gang Member

That is untrue statement.If TC wasn't a good show,it would've never became a success when The Ropers left or when Chrissy left.I guess Don Knotts,Jennilee Harrison and Priscilla Barnes did such a great job at being Mr.Furley,Cindy Snow and Terri Alden that they kept the show on for 5 more years which is when they ran out of ideas for new episodes and decided to end it in September of 1984

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with someone who thinks TODAY's WRESTLING is entertaining. I will say this; Three's Company was utter crap.

cach9801 · 10-12-2005, 12:42 PM

The Ropers was good-- until they went and did all sorts of wierd things... like adding Jenny to the cast towards the end who snuck through the window? I know last time I found someone upstairs at my house who was homeless, I just let her become part of my family. It's a pity that it was cancelled though... could have done so much better.

TVFactFan · 10-12-2005, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cach9801

The Ropers was good-- until they went and did all sorts of wierd things... like adding Jenny to the cast towards the end who snuck through the window? I know last time I found someone upstairs at my house who was homeless, I just let her become part of my family. It's a pity that it was cancelled though... could have done so much better.

One character who wasn;t needed on the show was David, the little boy

Mr. Television · 10-12-2005, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edster2973

I think you *might* be judging The Ropers too harshly (notice I said *might*... I concede that I *might* be wrong).

Nobody is going to argue and say that The Ropers was on an even par with Three's Company, but clearly the show had its merit. From what I understand, the show, for its second season, was moved to Sunday nights against the more popular Chips show, and the ratings sank.

Now, any of us can argue that had the show remained paired with Three's Company, The Ropers would have had a longer run. The fact that the ratings sank on a different night *might* indicate that The Ropers didn't have its own fanbase but inherited the spillover from Three's Company. This *might* be true. But consider this...

Suppose Three's Company had been moved to Sunday nights instead of The Ropers, would it have remained as strong in the ratings? It probably wouldn't have been cancelled, since it was one of ABC's cash cows (they would've switched it to another night), but my point is, even Three's Company would've suffered from being moved to that awful timeslot. Would anyone argue that this means Three's Company was an awful show?

Who knows how long The Ropers would've or should've lasted, but their bombing on Sunday nights is NOT a fair indication of how good or bad the show was. Many decent shows sink due to their unfortunate timeslots, just as many shows (that don't deserve to) make it because they're sandwiched in between hit shows or they're in a popular timeslot (a la Joey).

The Ropers wasn't meant to be Three's Company 2. It did have its own flavor and voice, just as The Jeffersons, Maude, Archie Bunker's Place and Good Times were different in voice and flavor from All in the Family. But clearly, the show should've been given a fairer shot at making it, and it wasn't. Whether the show was good or not is debatable, depending on one's taste, but that last statement is one thing that is fact. It wasn't treated fairly.

Ed

It was moved to Saturday nights opposite Chips which was even a worst night then Sundays. I stopped watching it then because Chips and BJ And The Bear were airing that night on NBC and they were 2 of my favorite shows. I didn't have a VCR then...most people probably didn't so The Ropers were out of luck.

Edster2973 · 10-12-2005, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DallasCowboysFanatic

It was moved to Saturday nights opposite Chips which was even a worst night then Sundays. I stopped watching it then because Chips and BJ And The Bear were airing that night on NBC and they were 2 of my favorite shows. I didn't have a VCR then...most people probably didn't so The Ropers were out of luck.

Right, which is what I think attributed to the show's cancellation, and not the quality of the show itself. It wasn't as good as its parent show Three's Company, but it still was funny in its own right and was a lot better than most shows today that pass for entertainment.

Ed

TVFactFan · 10-12-2005, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edster2973

Right, which is what I think attributed to the show's cancellation, and not the quality of the show itself. It wasn't as good as its parent show Three's Company, but it still was funny in its own right and was a lot better than most shows today that pass for entertainment.

Ed

I'm still trying to figure out why they added a 18 year old girl to the show. Made no sense

02-21-2004, 07:51 PM	#1
TVFactFan Member Forum Junkie Join Date: Aug 17, 2002 Posts: 99,055	I just found out the real reason why the Ropers were in the Top Ten after season one I never paid attention to this but i found out that once the Ropers premeired on ABC in March of 1979, there was no more new episodes of Three's Company until the month of May which was after the Ropers first season was already completed. So TC fans probably paid more attention to the Ropers because Three's Company was all repeats and it was on Tuesdays nights and it was a Three's Company connection until TC had new episodes. Funny how i just found that out.

01-12-2005, 10:46 AM	#3
Edster2973 Member Forum Regular Join Date: Mar 19, 2003 Location: Somerset, Massachusetts, USA Posts: 951	I think you might be judging *The Ropers* too harshly (notice I said might... I concede that I might be wrong). Nobody is going to argue and say that *The Ropers* was on an even par with *Three's Company, but clearly the show had its merit. From what I understand, the show, for its second season, was moved to Sunday nights against the more popular Chips* show, and the ratings sank. Now, any of us can argue that had the show remained paired with *Three's Company, The Ropers* would have had a longer run. The fact that the ratings sank on a different night might indicate that *The Ropers* didn't have its own fanbase but inherited the spillover from *Three's Company. This might* be true. But consider this... Suppose *Three's Company* had been moved to Sunday nights instead of *The Ropers, would it have remained as strong in the ratings? It probably wouldn't have been cancelled, since it was one of ABC's cash cows (they would've switched it to another night), but my point is, even Three's Company* would've suffered from being moved to that awful timeslot. Would anyone argue that this means *Three's Company* was an awful show? Who knows how long *The Ropers* would've or should've lasted, but their bombing on Sunday nights is NOT a fair indication of how good or bad the show was. Many decent shows sink due to their unfortunate timeslots, just as many shows (that don't deserve to) make it because they're sandwiched in between hit shows or they're in a popular timeslot (a la *Joey). The Ropers* wasn't meant to be *Three's Company 2. It did have its own flavor and voice, just as The Jeffersons, Maude, Archie Bunker's Place* and *Good Times* were different in voice and flavor from *All in the Family*. But clearly, the show should've been given a fairer shot at making it, and it wasn't. Whether the show was good or not is debatable, depending on one's taste, but that last statement is one thing that is fact. It wasn't treated fairly. Ed
	__________________ save water... shower with a friend...

10-12-2005, 12:42 PM	#11
cach9801 Robin Tripp Occasional Poster Join Date: Aug 07, 2005 Location: Reading, England Posts: 43	The Ropers was good-- until they went and did all sorts of wierd things... like adding Jenny to the cast towards the end who snuck through the window? I know last time I found someone upstairs at my house who was homeless, I just let her become part of my family. It's a pity that it was cancelled though... could have done so much better.