The Ropers - Good or Bad spinoff?

[Edster2973]

Hello one and all,

I just posted this on The Ropers message board, but since it's not nearly as popular as this board is, I thought I'd re-post my message here to give it wider audience. I'd be interested in hearing other people's thoughts on this topic as well. I think it has merit...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

[Janet Tripper]

Originally Posted by Edster2973

Hello one and all,

I just posted this on The Ropers message board, but since it's not nearly as popular as this board is, I thought I'd re-post my message here to give it wider audience. I'd be interested in hearing other people's thoughts on this topic as well. I think it has merit...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

I love the Ropers and have only watch 2 epis but I think I would have loved the show. I also have a question...how long did the Ropers last...2 seasons?!? I always thought it was just one!

[Edster2973]

Originally Posted by Janet Tripper

I love the Ropers and have only watch 2 epis but I think I would have loved the show. I also have a question...how long did the Ropers last...2 seasons?!? I always thought it was just one!

It lasted 1 season and a half. It debuted in the spring with only 6 episodes(like Three's Company did) and then during Three's Company's fourth season, The Ropers had one full season, after which it was cancelled. It was during the fall of that full season that it was placed on Sunday nights. I don't think Three's Company would've done as well as it did if it had been placed on Sunday nights for its second season either...

Ed