The Original Show About Nothing - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

Duster76 · 03-13-2008, 08:19 PM

This show must have been rushed into production, the Ropers (Fell and Lindley) had a show but nothing to do. How was a show about a married couple in the later stages of middle age, retired, no children or grandchildren, living in a condo, suppose to sustain audience interest from week to week. By the time the producers realized what they had done it was too late to save the show. I love Don Knotts but to me the Ropers were much funnier, I would have brought them back to Three's Company (Furley's brother sells the building back to the Ropers).

comedyfreak · 03-14-2008, 04:11 AM

They needed a stronger supporting cast then it may have had a chance.

vtunie · 03-14-2008, 03:00 PM

It was NOT about nothing. (Good grief, will Seinfeld ever be consigned to the oblivion it so richly deserves?)

I think it's impossible to see just how real and true to life Helen and Stanley were until you're approaching middle age and are happily married yourself. (Were they happy? On balance, yes. They were never unhappy enough to split). And you're right, there were few laughs in there, little comedic relief -- though there is a tragic comedy in such a life, you can't sustain it for 28 half-hour episodes.

Nor could they have been brought back onto Three's Company, because their joke had already been told -- many times. In contrast, Furley the clown was not as concretely realistic, but his role could be sustained until the end.

Duster76 · 03-15-2008, 12:01 AM

The Ropers were great supporting characters, to build a series around them they needed to be be fleshed out. This could have been done by giving them a back story allowing the writers to develop new characters and story lines.

Maybe Stanley could have bought or inherited a small motel or another apartment building, anything to give the series a way to develop characters and situations (after all it was a sit com).

You may be right about bringing the Ropers back to Three's Company, as the series moved into it's later years John Ritter took over the show lock, stock and barrel the Ropers probably wouldn't have gotten much screen time.

Jude The Obscure · 03-15-2008, 12:23 AM

You would have to ask the British producers why they felt the need for a George & Mildred spinoff (on which the US Ropers series was based).

Also on the Three's Company forum (I think), I posted about a proposed new syndicated sitcom in the late 80s called "Three Apartments" that would have had The Ropers back in a new apartment situation.

TVFactFan · 03-15-2008, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duster76

This show must have been rushed into production, the Ropers (Fell and Lindley) had a show but nothing to do. How was a show about a married couple in the later stages of middle age, retired, no children or grandchildren, living in a condo, suppose to sustain audience interest from week to week. By the time the producers realized what they had done it was too late to save the show. I love Don Knotts but to me the Ropers were much funnier, I would have brought them back to Three's Company (Furley's brother sells the building back to the Ropers).

Yeah the plot was kind of DRY followed by that DULL looking neighborhood. The only highlight of the show for me was ANN, if it wasn't for her on the show i would have never watched it.

vtunie · 03-15-2008, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingofTVResearch

Yeah the plot was kind of DRY followed by that DULL looking neighborhood. The only highlight of the show for me was ANN, if it wasn't for her on the show i would have never watched it.

You know, I never looked at it this way before, but that's absolutely right -- she's the cheeriest one on it. Thanks!

Duster76 · 03-16-2008, 07:48 PM

THanks for the head's up on George and Mildred. From what I've pieced together there were many more characters in that series than The Ropers. On top of that, the show played off of the British obsession with social status.

Jude The Obscure · 03-17-2008, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duster76

THanks for the head's up on George and Mildred. From what I've pieced together there were many more characters in that series than The Ropers. On top of that, the show played off of the British obsession with social status.

which explains the popular Britcom, "Keeping Up Appearances"

03-13-2008, 08:19 PM	#1
Duster76 Member Senior Member Join Date: Mar 01, 2008 Location: New jersey Posts: 1,653	The Original Show About Nothing This show must have been rushed into production, the Ropers (Fell and Lindley) had a show but nothing to do. How was a show about a married couple in the later stages of middle age, retired, no children or grandchildren, living in a condo, suppose to sustain audience interest from week to week. By the time the producers realized what they had done it was too late to save the show. I love Don Knotts but to me the Ropers were much funnier, I would have brought them back to Three's Company (Furley's brother sells the building back to the Ropers).

03-14-2008, 04:11 AM	#2
comedyfreak Cheers! Forum Fanatic Join Date: Dec 14, 2005 Location: Sunny California Posts: 11,059	They needed a stronger supporting cast then it may have had a chance.
	__________________ www.facebook.com/comedyfreak

03-14-2008, 03:00 PM	#3
vtunie Member Forum Regular Join Date: Oct 23, 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 592	It was NOT about nothing. (Good grief, will Seinfeld ever be consigned to the oblivion it so richly deserves?) I think it's impossible to see just how real and true to life Helen and Stanley were until you're approaching middle age and are happily married yourself. (Were they happy? On balance, yes. They were never unhappy enough to split). And you're right, there were few laughs in there, little comedic relief -- though there is a tragic comedy in such a life, you can't sustain it for 28 half-hour episodes. Nor could they have been brought back onto Three's Company, because their joke had already been told -- many times. In contrast, Furley the clown was not as concretely realistic, but his role could be sustained until the end.

03-15-2008, 12:01 AM	#4
Duster76 Member Senior Member Join Date: Mar 01, 2008 Location: New jersey Posts: 1,653	The Ropers were great supporting characters, to build a series around them they needed to be be fleshed out. This could have been done by giving them a back story allowing the writers to develop new characters and story lines. Maybe Stanley could have bought or inherited a small motel or another apartment building, anything to give the series a way to develop characters and situations (after all it was a sit com). You may be right about bringing the Ropers back to Three's Company, as the series moved into it's later years John Ritter took over the show lock, stock and barrel the Ropers probably wouldn't have gotten much screen time.

03-15-2008, 12:23 AM	#5
Jude The Obscure Retired Eternal Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Dec 10, 2006 Posts: 7,520	You would have to ask the British producers why they felt the need for a George & Mildred spinoff (on which the US Ropers series was based). Also on the Three's Company forum (I think), I posted about a proposed new syndicated sitcom in the late 80s called "Three Apartments" that would have had The Ropers back in a new apartment situation.

03-16-2008, 07:48 PM	#8
Duster76 Member Senior Member Join Date: Mar 01, 2008 Location: New jersey Posts: 1,653	THanks for the head's up on George and Mildred. From what I've pieced together there were many more characters in that series than The Ropers. On top of that, the show played off of the British obsession with social status.