Why do u think the producers wanted to get rid of the Ropers? - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

TVFactFan · 06-20-2006, 07:16 PM

I think it went deeper than wanting to do a spinoff because the British version was such a hit. The reason I feel that way is because they added someone to replace the Ropers characters so that they could not return to Three's Company. Couldn't they just have't given the trio a new OFF SCREEN Landlord if they really wanted the Ropers characters to return?

Mr. Television · 06-20-2006, 07:39 PM

I think they thought The Ropers would be a hit and therefore wouldn't have to return to the show. In Fact the show was a hit during the first season. Then ABC made the mistake of moving it to Saturdays and that really destroyed the showe. They should have aired it after TC until it really took off. They also made a big gamble getting rid of them before they cast the new landlord. I think The Ropers would have came back if the new landord wasn't excepted by the fans. The producers were very lucky they got Don Knotts.

TVFactFan · 06-20-2006, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Walk The Line

I think they thought The Ropers would be a hit and therefore wouldn't have to return to the show. In Fact the show was a hit during the first season. Then ABC made the mistake of moving it to Saturdays and that really destroyed the showe. They should have aired it after TC until it really took off. They also made a big gamble getting rid of them before they cast the new landlord. I think The Ropers would have came back if the new landord wasn't excepted by the fans. The producers were very lucky they got Don Knotts.

But can we really look at a show as a REAL HIT if they only had 6 eps that season?-lol That's why I think season 1 was good because number 1 it was only 6 eps and that three' company had ended it's season so all TC Fans could watch the Ropers

Mr. Television · 06-20-2006, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TVResearcher

But can we really look at a show as a REAL HIT if they only had 6 eps that season?-lol That's why I think season 1 was good because number 1 it was only 6 eps and that three' company had ended it's season so all TC Fans could watch the Ropers

Thats true and that's why they should have left it on Tuesdays. I never watched it much when it was on Saturdays. I just forgot it was there. I think I watched Chips during that timeslot.

TVFactFan · 06-20-2006, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Walk The Line

Thats true and that's why they should have left it on Tuesdays. I never watched it much when it was on Saturdays. I just forgot it was there. I think I watched Chips during that timeslot.

Yup if they had aired it after TC it would have probably had the show run into the 83-84 season because you would have been getting a hour of TC

Ireneparalegal · 06-20-2006, 09:07 PM

but still...there was a clause in their contracts (the actors) that if their show was cancelled within a year, they were going back to TC. Regardless if the new landlord was well received or not. The Ropers was cancelled after a season and a half, therefore, the option to return was no longer in effect.

TVFactFan · 06-20-2006, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ireneparalegal

but still...there was a clause in their contracts (the actors) that if their show was cancelled within a year, they were going back to TC. Regardless if the new landlord was well received or not. The Ropers was cancelled after a season and a half, therefore, the option to return was no longer in effect.

Which is why Norman Fell should have said well since that's the case I don;t want the Ropers to start until the Fall of 1979. If had did that he would cover himself real good

Mr. Television · 06-20-2006, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TVResearcher

Which is why Norman Fell should have said well since that's the case I don;t want the Ropers to start until the Fall of 1979. If had did that he would cover himself real good

That would have been the smart thing to do. He never wanted to leave the show. It was the Producers and Audrey Lindley who wanted them to leave.

Ireneparalegal · 06-20-2006, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TVResearcher

Which is why Norman Fell should have said well since that's the case I don;t want the Ropers to start until the Fall of 1979. If had did that he would cover himself real good

LOL - yeah, like Norman had pull like that. actors don't dictate what goes on, the producers do. "The Ropers" may have been awesome and great to the fans, but the producers had the final say so.

TVFactFan · 06-20-2006, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ireneparalegal

LOL - yeah, like Norman had pull like that. actors don't dictate what goes on, the producers do. "The Ropers" may have been awesome and great to the fans, but the producers had the final say so.

I think he had PULL because Fred Silverman went to the TC producers and said-"How can we get Norman to change his mind?"

Brian Damage · 06-20-2006, 09:28 PM

Audrey Lindley wanted to leave?

TVFactFan · 06-20-2006, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Damage

Audrey Lindley wanted to leave?

Yeah she was for it, Norman was the one who didn't want leave that hit show called Three's Company

Brian Damage · 06-20-2006, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TVResearcher

Yeah she was for it, Norman was the one who didn't want leave that hit show called Three's Company

Well, I can understand wanting her own show, but I wouldn't be so fast to leave a bonafide hit.

TVFactFan · 06-20-2006, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Damage

Well, I can understand wanting her own show, but I wouldn't be so fast to leave a bonafide hit.

Exactly, and it wasn't like she was a ENTERTAINING supporter character-lol

Ireneparalegal · 06-20-2006, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TVResearcher

I think he had PULL because Fred Silverman went to the TC producers and said-"How can we get Norman to change his mind?"

changing his mind regarding one issue doesn't mean the man has pull.

06-20-2006, 07:16 PM	#1
TVFactFan Member Forum Junkie Join Date: Aug 17, 2002 Posts: 99,105	Why do u think the producers wanted to get rid of the Ropers? I think it went deeper than wanting to do a spinoff because the British version was such a hit. The reason I feel that way is because they added someone to replace the Ropers characters so that they could not return to Three's Company. Couldn't they just have't given the trio a new OFF SCREEN Landlord if they really wanted the Ropers characters to return?

06-20-2006, 07:39 PM	#2
Mr. Television 23 Years at Sitcoms Online Forum Icon Join Date: Jun 06, 2003 Location: Somewhere you're Not Posts: 62,132	I think they thought The Ropers would be a hit and therefore wouldn't have to return to the show. In Fact the show was a hit during the first season. Then ABC made the mistake of moving it to Saturdays and that really destroyed the showe. They should have aired it after TC until it really took off. They also made a big gamble getting rid of them before they cast the new landlord. I think The Ropers would have came back if the new landord wasn't excepted by the fans. The producers were very lucky they got Don Knotts.
	__________________ Sonny

06-20-2006, 09:07 PM	#6
Ireneparalegal LEGAL SPICE ;) Forum Legend Join Date: Jul 25, 2005 Location: OXNARD, CA - WHERE THE DALLAS COWBOYS TRAIN & PRACTICE Posts: 38,691	but still...there was a clause in their contracts (the actors) that if their show was cancelled within a year, they were going back to TC. Regardless if the new landlord was well received or not. The Ropers was cancelled after a season and a half, therefore, the option to return was no longer in effect.
	__________________ DALLAS COWBOYS ARE HERE AT TRAINING CAMP!!!

06-20-2006, 09:28 PM	#11
Brian Damage I'm Rich Bitch Forum Icon Join Date: Feb 03, 2002 Location: What Ain't No Country I Ever Heard Of...They Speak English in What? Posts: 63,107	Audrey Lindley wanted to leave?
	__________________ The Key to the Kingdom of Heaven: John 3:3 *Money Doesn't Buy Happiness...But I'd Rather Cry in My Private Jet*