They Should Have Let The Ropers Return

[Dr. Thong]

I know that contractually, NRW productions did not have to let them, but Norman Fell and Audra Lindley should have been allowed to return to Three's Company after the demise of The Ropers.

Having recently watched some of the season two episodes on DVD and seeing a season four rerun today on TV Land's marathon, it just reinforced my opinion that Stanley Roper was a far better character than Ralph Furley. And he had a great comic foil with his sexually deprived wife, Helen.

I'm sure Don Knotts has his fans here on this board, and I'm not looking to knock them or their opinion, but by the beginning of season six, the show had been hurt by the departures of Fell, Lindley and of course, Suzanne Somers. And while it was still a good show, it was never quite the same.

[TVFactFan]

Originally posted by Dr. Thong
I know that contractually, NRW productions did not have to let them, but Norman Fell and Audra Lindley should have been allowed to return to Three's Company after the demise of The Ropers.

Having recently watched some of the season two episodes on DVD and seeing a season four rerun today on TV Land's marathon, it just reinforced my opinion that Stanley Roper was a far better character than Ralph Furley. And he had a great comic foil with his sexually deprived wife, Helen.

I'm sure Don Knotts has his fans here on this board, and I'm not looking to knock them or their opinion, but by the beginning of season six, the show had been hurt by the departures of Fell, Lindley and of course, Suzanne Somers. And while it was still a good show, it was never quite the same.

I still don't know how they were abe to get Norman and Audrey to come back to do a guest apopearance when they had refused to let them return to the show a year earlier. I still would like to know how that happened.

[Dr. Thong]

Originally posted by TVShow Analyzer
I still don't know how they were abe to get Norman and Audrey to come back to do a guest apopearance when they had refused to let them return to the show a year earlier. I still would like to know how that happened.

Easy, they gave them money.

[TVFactFan]

Originally posted by Dr. Thong
Easy, they gave them money.

Well i'm just surprised that they would listen to offers after being told-NO YOU CAN RETURN TO THE SHOW.

[Dr. Thong]

Originally posted by TVShow Analyzer
Well i'm just surprised that they would listen to offers after being told-NO YOU CAN RETURN TO THE SHOW.

Well, the producers probably figured a the fans would like to see The Ropers after the cancellation of their show and I'm sure that Norman Fell and Audra Lindley looked at it as a way to make some money. I'm guessing that maybe they needed the work since they weren't in a regular series any more.

[pilotguy]

Originally posted by Dr. Thong
Having recently watched some of the season two episodes on DVD and seeing a season four rerun today on TV Land's marathon, it just reinforced my opinion that Stanley Roper was a far better character than Ralph Furley. And he had a great comic foil with his sexually deprived wife, Helen.

The character of Ralph Furley had a few things going against him:

1. Furley DID have a comic foil when he was first signed on as the new landlord.....namely Ann Wedgeworth as Lana. While Lana had the hots for Jack, Furley had the hots for Lana! It was funny watching Furley trying to hit on Lana, but once she was dropped from the series there was nobody for him to chase after on a regular basis.....Furley was too much of a gentleman to hit on Janet, Chrissy or any of Jack's other young roomates. The lack of a regular "sex target" diminished Furley's "playboy wanna-be" character considerably.

2. Furley was simply too nice of a guy to be considered a serious threat as a landlord. With Stanley Roper you had a "Fred Mertz" type of landlord....You KNEW that Stanley wouldn't hesitate to throw a tenant out in the street if he wasn't getting his rent or if "funny business" was going on under his roof, but somehow you just couldn't picture Ralph Furley doing that. Furley may THREATEN to evict a tenant, but he wouldn't REALLY have the guts to do it...but Roper WOULD! Roper's attitude created more situations where the roomates had to try to keep things from Stanley for fear that they would REALLY get evicted, but there just wasn't that "fear factor" with Furley!

I think that the difference between the two landlords can be seen in the show's various openings.....Two of the "Three's Company" openings have the roomates going to the zoo and an amusement park....with Furley happily tagging along as "one of the gang". Could you just imagine STANLEY ROPER going to the zoo or to an amusement park with the roomates and Mrs. Roper? They'd have to DRAG him there, and he'd be kicking and complaining all the way!

[TVFactFan]

Originally posted by pilotguy
The character of Ralph Furley had a few things going against him:

1. Furley DID have a comic foil when he was first signed on as the new landlord.....namely Ann Wedgeworth as Lana. While Lana had the hots for Jack, Furley had the hots for Lana! It was funny watching Furley trying to hit on Lana, but once she was dropped from the series there was nobody for him to chase after on a regular basis.....Furley was too much of a gentleman to hit on Janet, Chrissy or any of Jack's other young roomates. The lack of a regular "sex target" diminished Furley's "playboy wanna-be" character considerably.

2. Furley was simply too nice of a guy to be considered a serious threat as a landlord. With Stanley Roper you had a "Fred Mertz" type of landlord....You KNEW that Stanley wouldn't hesitate to throw a tenant out in the street if he wasn't getting his rent or if "funny business" was going on under his roof, but somehow you just couldn't picture Ralph Furley doing that. Furley may THREATEN to evict a tenant, but he wouldn't REALLY have the guts to do it...but Roper WOULD! Roper's attitude created more situations where the roomates had to try to keep things from Stanley for fear that they would REALLY get evicted, but there just wasn't that "fear factor" with Furley!

I think that the difference between the two landlords can be seen in the show's various openings.....Two of the "Three's Company" openings have the roomates going to the zoo and an amusement park....with Furley happily tagging along as "one of the gang". Could you just imagine STANLEY ROPER going to the zoo or to an amusement park with the roomates and Mrs. Roper? They'd have to DRAG him there, and he'd be kicking and complaining all the way!

I agree, Mr. Roper never got to close to the trio. There was always a distance. Unlike Mr. Furley, he was much more of a friend

[keithrobbins]

i'm sorry but i think furley was a much more suitable choice. furley was multi dimensional, whereas to me mr. roper was a cut and dry man. against progression. of course had he stayed, i'm sure the finale would have been more emotional with roper and jack, with roper approving of jack. however, i have to go with the decision to bring in knotts. love ya raplh furley, you fake rich tycoon getting jack out of crazy situations.

[Mr. Television]

I liked Mr. Roper and Mr. Furley about the same but it would have been nice if Mr. and Mrs. Roper had made more than one guest appearance.

[pilotguy]

Originally posted by keithrobbins
i'm sorry but i think furley was a much more suitable choice. furley was multi dimensional, whereas to me mr. roper was a cut and dry man. against progression. of course had he stayed, i'm sure the finale would have been more emotional with roper and jack, with roper approving of jack. however, i have to go with the decision to bring in knotts. love ya raplh furley, you fake rich tycoon getting jack out of crazy situations.

Oh, don't get me wrong....I like Mr. Furley too and think that he was a very funny character on the show...It's just that Mr. Roper suited the "threatening landlord" role much better. It would have been nice to see Furley in another capacity on the show....a "swinging single" neighbor/tenant perhaps?