Was "The Ropers" Spinoff A Way to Intentionally Knock Off the Characters??? - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

Brian Damage · 03-24-2010, 10:00 PM

I've been doing a bit of reading up on this show & to me, it seems that the producers of Three's Company & ABC were looking for an excuse to get rid of both Fell & Lindley. Maybe they thought they could cut costs by having one landlord instead of two. Maybe they didn't like the characters all together. I find it very suspicious that they promised them a return to 3's company if their spinoff didn't work out. ABC let that stipulation lapse and kicked the "Ropers" to the curb.

Mr. Television · 03-24-2010, 11:07 PM

I don't think they originally intended to just get rid of them. The Ropers were very popular at the time. TC was the #2 ranked show in the country and they were competing for #1. I think it was very dangerous for them to break up the cast like that. I think ABC wanted to spin them off while the show was still hot. ABC made a big mistake though. They moved the show to Saturdays during year 2 and paired it with an awful sitcom called Detective's School. They expected the Ropers to be able to lead off the night but they couldn't. If the Ropers were left on Tuesdays after TC, I think the show could have grown into a hit. In the meantime TC hired Don Knotts. Fans excepted the change and I think that is why they wouldn't let the Ropers back. If ratings would have dropped, I think they would have been back regardless if it was over a year. They did actually add another new character that season too. Ann Wedgeworth was brought in but she didn't work out so she was dropped after 13 episodes. In the end Norman and Audra were screwed over. I would have liked to see them in at least a recurring basis.

Jude The Obscure · 03-25-2010, 09:10 PM

^And no reason the kids couldn't have dropped over at Cheviot Hills and vice versa at least twice or so a season.

scotsguy · 03-28-2010, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jude The Obscure

^And no reason the kids couldn't have dropped over at Cheviot Hills and vice versa at least twice or so a season.

In the UK "George and Mildred" was the spinoff from "Man About The House" and was an even bigger hit than the parent show,the spinoff didn't happen until the parent show finished.
"George and Mildred" only finished when Yootha Joyce (Mildred) died.

TVFactFan · 03-28-2010, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jude The Obscure

^And no reason the kids couldn't have dropped over at Cheviot Hills and vice versa at least twice or so a season.

That wouldn't have been realistic for the trio to drop in on a middle aged couple who was not their relatives. Can you really see th trio going out of their way to visit the Ropers? The only reason they appeared in season 2 of the Ropers was because Mr. Roper called them and asked them to come over for a Surprise Party

TVFactFan · 03-28-2010, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Damage

I've been doing a bit of reading up on this show & to me, it seems that the producers of Three's Company & ABC were looking for an excuse to get rid of both Fell & Lindley. Maybe they thought they could cut costs by having one landlord instead of two. Maybe they didn't like the characters all together. I find it very suspicious that they promised them a return to 3's company if their spinoff didn't work out. ABC let that stipulation lapse and kicked the "Ropers" to the curb.

I always thought the same thing. Plus you can tell that's what it was by the producer said-"we were looking for someone like Don Knotts"

The plan was to replace the Ropers

Pavan · 03-28-2010, 12:24 PM

I disagree, Solomon. The plan was making The Ropers a hit show. And it was a hit in its short first season despite airing at 10pm. It aired Tuesdays at 10pm for 6 weeks in mid-season, with the premiere airing the same night as the Three's Company episode "An Anniversary Surprise". Then for the next 5 weeks, Three's Company was not on, so I think they should have moved The Ropers to 9pm to generate a better following. Three's Company only had one episode left that season and it didn't return until early May, so The Ropers was long over for its first season by then (since mid-April 1979). Then by season two, they moved it to Saturdays at 8pm for some reason. They needed to keep it on the air on Tuesdays for one more season, I thought.

The Ropers wouldn't need replacing if they didn't get their own show, so the idea of "someone like Don Knotts" didn't come to mind until AFTER the The Ropers left.

Oh well, it all worked out because we got Don Knotts' magic as well.

TVFactFan · 03-28-2010, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pavan

I disagree, Solomon. The plan was making The Ropers a hit show. And it was a hit in its short first season despite airing at 10pm. It aired Tuesdays at 10pm for 6 weeks in mid-season, with the premiere airing the same night as the Three's Company episode "An Anniversary Surprise". Then for the next 5 weeks, Three's Company was not on, so I think they should have moved The Ropers to 9pm to generate a better following. Three's Company only had one episode left that season and it didn't return until early May, so The Ropers was long over for its first season by then (since mid-April 1979). Then by season two, they moved it to Saturdays at 8pm for some reason. They needed to keep it on the air on Tuesdays for one more season, I thought.

The Ropers wouldn't need replacing if they didn't get their own show, so the idea of "someone like Don Knotts" didn't come to mind until AFTER the The Ropers left.

Oh well, it all worked out because we got Don Knotts' magic as well.

And that was the main reason the Ropers had a good first season, because there was no TC existence so the Ropers was as close to Three's Company as possible and NEW whichis why it did well.

And why was someone the OPPOSITE of Mr. Roper so important if they had not planned on getting rid of him?

Pavan · 03-28-2010, 01:52 PM

Mr. Furley was still a bit like Roper. But why have the same 2 exact type of characters? So of course the producers would be looking for something a bit different. My point is, they had no intention of replacing the Ropers until AFTER The Ropers premiered.

TVFactFan · 03-28-2010, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pavan

Mr. Furley was still a bit like Roper. But why have the same 2 exact type of characters? So of course the producers would be looking for something a bit different. My point is, they had no intention of replacing the Ropers until AFTER The Ropers premiered.

Mr. Roper and Mr. Furley was like NIGHT and DAY

Pavan · 03-28-2010, 02:14 PM

And they still had the same type of rules. No hanky panky.

TVFactFan · 03-28-2010, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pavan

And they still had the same type of rules. No hanky panky.

Pav you know what I mean, Roper was someone Jack and the girls too more seriously. They always viewed Furley as a CLOWN

FELLNORM · 04-09-2010, 06:19 AM

I believe the reason to move Norman and Audrey to a new series is that there were too many excellent actors in Three´s Company for one show! I really liked (and still do) the Ropers. Sure it had some mediocre episodes, but so did Three´s Company. Since it´s not available on DVD I have uploaded some episodes on YouTube. The channel name is the same as my username here.

704Hauser · 06-02-2011, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scotsguy

In the UK "George and Mildred" was the spinoff from "Man About The House" and was an even bigger hit than the parent show,the spinoff didn't happen until the parent show finished.
"George and Mildred" only finished when Yootha Joyce (Mildred) died.

Had Joyce (R.I.P.) lived, they would have only made one more series, then moved on to other things.

Guy Incognito · 06-02-2011, 04:28 PM

My take? It's both.

Yes, ABC was all about the spin-offs during the late 70s/early 80s and The Ropers was as good a bet as any. However, I also think the producers were being pragmatic and trying to head off a potential issue at the pass. Norman and Audra were seasoned actors and were already being credited as "starring" on the runaway hit TC, so with contract negotiations coming up I'm sure they were gearing up for battle and prepared to demand a HEFTY raise. So, rather than take the risk of losing them due to a failure to come to terms (not to mention trying to avoid a nasty public relations disaster which could harm the show), the producers decided to offer them their own series instead. That way, if the show hit big, a hefty pay raise would be justified and not upset the delicate balance on TC by potentially having to pay them more than John Ritter (the nominal star). Or worse, having to give him an equal raise and risk alienating Joyce and Suzanne in the process. And if not, well, they already had their replacement in Don Knotts and only paying one hefty salary instead of two (since I'm guessing Ann Wedgeworth wasn't making nearly as much as Audra did during her last year). It was a no-lose situation for them, either way.

So I'm sure they thought a spin-off was a great plan and that everyone would be happy: ABC, Audra and Norman (in theory), "the kids", etc. Of course, they probably didn't realize what was coming just one year down the line...

03-24-2010, 10:00 PM	#1
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: 63,108	Was "The Ropers" Spinoff A Way to Intentionally Knock Off the Characters??? I've been doing a bit of reading up on this show & to me, it seems that the producers of Three's Company & ABC were looking for an excuse to get rid of both Fell & Lindley. Maybe they thought they could cut costs by having one landlord instead of two. Maybe they didn't like the characters all together. I find it very suspicious that they promised them a return to 3's company if their spinoff didn't work out. ABC let that stipulation lapse and kicked the "Ropers" to the curb. Attached Images
	__________________ The Key to the Kingdom of Heaven: John 3:3 *Money Doesn't Buy Happiness...But I'd Rather Cry in My Private Jet*

03-28-2010, 12:24 PM	#7
Pavan SO News/Reviews Director Administrator Forum Superstar Join Date: Feb 17, 2000 Location: Linden, NJ (Where Hal Linden got his last name from!) Posts: 26,814	I disagree, Solomon. The plan was making The Ropers a hit show. And it was a hit in its short first season despite airing at 10pm. It aired Tuesdays at 10pm for 6 weeks in mid-season, with the premiere airing the same night as the Three's Company episode "An Anniversary Surprise". Then for the next 5 weeks, Three's Company was not on, so I think they should have moved The Ropers to 9pm to generate a better following. Three's Company only had one episode left that season and it didn't return until early May, so The Ropers was long over for its first season by then (since mid-April 1979). Then by season two, they moved it to Saturdays at 8pm for some reason. They needed to keep it on the air on Tuesdays for one more season, I thought. The Ropers wouldn't need replacing if they didn't get their own show, so the idea of "someone like Don Knotts" didn't come to mind until AFTER the The Ropers left. Oh well, it all worked out because we got Don Knotts' magic as well.
	__________________ SitcomsOnline.com News Blog -- The best news out there! SitcomsOnline.com DVD Reviews -- We are #1 in reviews!

03-24-2010, 11:07 PM	#2
Mr. Television 22 Years at Sitcoms Online Forum Icon Join Date: Jun 06, 2003 Location: Somewhere you're Not Posts: 62,127	I don't think they originally intended to just get rid of them. The Ropers were very popular at the time. TC was the #2 ranked show in the country and they were competing for #1. I think it was very dangerous for them to break up the cast like that. I think ABC wanted to spin them off while the show was still hot. ABC made a big mistake though. They moved the show to Saturdays during year 2 and paired it with an awful sitcom called Detective's School. They expected the Ropers to be able to lead off the night but they couldn't. If the Ropers were left on Tuesdays after TC, I think the show could have grown into a hit. In the meantime TC hired Don Knotts. Fans excepted the change and I think that is why they wouldn't let the Ropers back. If ratings would have dropped, I think they would have been back regardless if it was over a year. They did actually add another new character that season too. Ann Wedgeworth was brought in but she didn't work out so she was dropped after 13 episodes. In the end Norman and Audra were screwed over. I would have liked to see them in at least a recurring basis.
	__________________ Sonny

03-25-2010, 09:10 PM	#3
Jude The Obscure Retired Eternal Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Dec 10, 2006 Posts: 7,519	^And no reason the kids couldn't have dropped over at Cheviot Hills and vice versa at least twice or so a season.

03-28-2010, 01:52 PM	#9
Pavan SO News/Reviews Director Administrator Forum Superstar Join Date: Feb 17, 2000 Location: Linden, NJ (Where Hal Linden got his last name from!) Posts: 26,814	Mr. Furley was still a bit like Roper. But why have the same 2 exact type of characters? So of course the producers would be looking for something a bit different. My point is, they had no intention of replacing the Ropers until AFTER The Ropers premiered.

03-28-2010, 02:14 PM	#11
Pavan SO News/Reviews Director Administrator Forum Superstar Join Date: Feb 17, 2000 Location: Linden, NJ (Where Hal Linden got his last name from!) Posts: 26,814	And they still had the same type of rules. No hanky panky.

04-09-2010, 06:19 AM	#13
FELLNORM Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Apr 09, 2010 Location: Finland Posts: 18	I believe the reason to move Norman and Audrey to a new series is that there were too many excellent actors in Three´s Company for one show! I really liked (and still do) the Ropers. Sure it had some mediocre episodes, but so did Three´s Company. Since it´s not available on DVD I have uploaded some episodes on YouTube. The channel name is the same as my username here.

06-02-2011, 04:28 PM	#15
Guy Incognito International Man of Misery Occasional Poster Join Date: Apr 30, 2011 Location: The Solar System Posts: 83	My take? It's both. Yes, ABC was all about the spin-offs during the late 70s/early 80s and The Ropers was as good a bet as any. However, I also think the producers were being pragmatic and trying to head off a potential issue at the pass. Norman and Audra were seasoned actors and were already being credited as "starring" on the runaway hit TC, so with contract negotiations coming up I'm sure they were gearing up for battle and prepared to demand a HEFTY raise. So, rather than take the risk of losing them due to a failure to come to terms (not to mention trying to avoid a nasty public relations disaster which could harm the show), the producers decided to offer them their own series instead. That way, if the show hit big, a hefty pay raise would be justified and not upset the delicate balance on TC by potentially having to pay them more than John Ritter (the nominal star). Or worse, having to give him an equal raise and risk alienating Joyce and Suzanne in the process. And if not, well, they already had their replacement in Don Knotts and only paying one hefty salary instead of two (since I'm guessing Ann Wedgeworth wasn't making nearly as much as Audra did during her last year). It was a no-lose situation for them, either way. So I'm sure they thought a spin-off was a great plan and that everyone would be happy: ABC, Audra and Norman (in theory), "the kids", etc. Of course, they probably didn't realize what was coming just one year down the line...