Do You Think 'The Ropers' Were Too Old to Star in Their Own Spinoff??? - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

Brian Damage · 12-17-2010, 11:34 PM

First off, I love Stanley & Helen, but realistically, were they a little bit old to star in a sitcom as the stars? Would it have worked better if they added Larry Dallas to the cast perhaps?

Mr. Television · 12-17-2010, 11:50 PM

I don't think age really had anything to do with it. Some supporting characters just aren't meant to be leads. I haven't seen many of the episodes of the Ropers. I watched the first season but then ABC moved the show to Saturdays opposite Chips where it died. I of course watched Chips which I suppose appealed to a younger crowd so maybe I'm wrong....

Marvo301 · 12-18-2010, 01:40 AM

I don't think the Ropers were too old. I think they were too shallow. She wanted to have fun in the bedroom and he didn't. That's hardly the basis for an entire series. They were basically one joke characters and as such couldn't carry a series.

MikeLutton · 12-18-2010, 02:44 PM

i always liked the ropers they was a great comedy team.missed them on Three's company though

Dr. Thong · 12-18-2010, 06:21 PM

I don't think they were too old. But I do feel bad for Norman Fell: He really didn't want to do a spinoff and was content to stay on Three's Company. He knew a good thing when he had it.

It's too bad his manager didn't insist on a clause that would allow him to return to TC at any time if the show was cancelled. The clause stipulated one year, so the sleazeball producers waited until the year ran out and then told Fell the show was cancelled. He asked if he could still return, but no dice.

TVFactFan · 12-22-2010, 12:35 PM

I just don't think their spinoff was something for most TC fans since it was a lot more slowed down and laid back type of show. It was defintely for older viewers. I don't think at age 15 I would have been recording episodes of the Ropers like I did with Three's Company

cocytus · 12-22-2010, 01:13 PM

No, they weren't too old. Both Norman Fell and Audra Lindley were strong comedic actors that could have a well-written show work.

IMHO, the producers and writers never laid a solid groundwork for this show to succeed. Had they done so,The Roper's could have had several seasons (or more) based solely on the popularity of the characters.

TVFactFan · 12-22-2010, 03:56 PM

If the show had after Three's Company like how Laverne and Shirley aired after Happy Days, the show would have been successful.

melskie007 · 12-22-2010, 04:21 PM

No, ropers were cool in my book! don nuts couldnt pull off what they did. Mr roper with his womanizing ways and his jokes and mrs roper always wanting mr roper but oddly enough this reminds me of a later show..? the bundy's. Why must they always copy synopsis from other shows? anyhow, I think what the ropers needed was more characters around this angle to carry on a show of their own..Here's a storyline: Downstairs lives two woman or three that mr roper stares at all the time and these woman have silly antics..maybe one is smart while the other two arent. then upstairs lives a buff hott man for mrs roper. And this stud is always doing stuff for her..this would have appealed to the younger audience if in fact they went with this premise.

ThomasE · 12-23-2010, 02:02 AM

I don't think it was age. To me, the writing and plots were weak along with the setting and neighbors. That about sums it up for me. Their age has nothing to do with it IMO.

Jude The Obscure · 12-23-2010, 12:53 PM

It was supposed to a "fish out of water" premise with the lower class Ropers moving into a upper middle class existence and the writers really never developed it as such.

LUNCH · 12-24-2010, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cocytus

No, they weren't too old. Both Norman Fell and Audra Lindley were strong comedic actors that could have a well-written show work.

IMHO, the producers and writers never laid a solid groundwork for this show to succeed. Had they done so,The Roper's could have had several seasons (or more) based solely on the popularity of the characters.

I basically agree.--However,I think the show was still good enough to run a few extra seasons,but back when The Ropers originally aired there was still alot of quality tv shows being made and tough competition,unlike current tv.

LUNCH · 12-24-2010, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeL

i always liked the ropers they was a great comedy team.missed them on Three's company though

What the producers of Three's Company 'should' have done after The Ropers was cancelled is brought both of them back and made them the landlords once again.And they could have easily made Mr Furley become one of the neighbors instead.It would have made Threes Company later seasons better than they were.The producers really made a big mistake by not letting them return.

Retro4Life · 12-24-2010, 03:25 PM

I personally agree that the Ropers weren't too old to have a successful sitcom, but let's take Brian's point and examine it. There is an age bias on TV; sure you can cite The Golden Girls as an exception, but by and large there are almost no successful comedies that centered around characters over the age of 50.

MikeLutton · 01-12-2011, 08:57 PM

i agree least their apartment would of had a nice makeover furley was ok but he was to cartoonish ropers was a lot better.furley as neighbor would of made more sense

12-17-2010, 11:34 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	Do You Think 'The Ropers' Were Too Old to Star in Their Own Spinoff??? First off, I love Stanley & Helen, but realistically, were they a little bit old to star in a sitcom as the stars? Would it have worked better if they added Larry Dallas to the cast perhaps?
	__________________ The Key to the Kingdom of Heaven: John 3:3 *Money Doesn't Buy Happiness...But I'd Rather Cry in My Private Jet*

12-17-2010, 11:50 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 age really had anything to do with it. Some supporting characters just aren't meant to be leads. I haven't seen many of the episodes of the Ropers. I watched the first season but then ABC moved the show to Saturdays opposite Chips where it died. I of course watched Chips which I suppose appealed to a younger crowd so maybe I'm wrong....
	__________________ Sonny

12-18-2010, 01:40 AM	#3
Marvo301 I'm NOT a Blockhead! Forum Celebrity Join Date: May 17, 2002 Location: The Great White North Posts: 21,452	I don't think the Ropers were too old. I think they were too shallow. She wanted to have fun in the bedroom and he didn't. That's hardly the basis for an entire series. They were basically one joke characters and as such couldn't carry a series.
	__________________ Only a life lived for others is worth living. Albert Einstein A life isn't worth living unless it has impact on other lives. Jackie Robinson Be always at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let each new year find you a better man. Benjamin Franklin

12-18-2010, 02:44 PM	#4
MikeLutton Mike Lutton DVD Legend! Forum Veteran Join Date: Jan 05, 2005 Location: usa pennsyvania Posts: 6,873	i always liked the ropers they was a great comedy team.missed them on Three's company though
	__________________ Tv And DVD Addict got over a hundred dvds in my collection more than anyone in the neighborhood. also huge Animal lover family man

12-18-2010, 06:21 PM	#5
Dr. Thong a/k/a "ACK!" Forum Veteran Join Date: Jul 10, 2001 Location: New Hampshire, USA Posts: 5,546	I don't think they were too old. But I do feel bad for Norman Fell: He really didn't want to do a spinoff and was content to stay on Three's Company. He knew a good thing when he had it. It's too bad his manager didn't insist on a clause that would allow him to return to TC at any time if the show was cancelled. The clause stipulated one year, so the sleazeball producers waited until the year ran out and then told Fell the show was cancelled. He asked if he could still return, but no dice.
	__________________ "Sunday has been cancelled due to lack of interest. That is all."

12-22-2010, 12:35 PM	#6
TVFactFan Member Forum Junkie Join Date: Aug 17, 2002 Posts: 98,983	I just don't think their spinoff was something for most TC fans since it was a lot more slowed down and laid back type of show. It was defintely for older viewers. I don't think at age 15 I would have been recording episodes of the Ropers like I did with Three's Company

12-22-2010, 01:13 PM	#7
cocytus Member Forum Regular Join Date: Sep 15, 2010 Location: NE Indiana Posts: 781	No, they weren't too old. Both Norman Fell and Audra Lindley were strong comedic actors that could have a well-written show work. IMHO, the producers and writers never laid a solid groundwork for this show to succeed. Had they done so,The Roper's could have had several seasons (or more) based solely on the popularity of the characters.

12-22-2010, 03:56 PM	#8
TVFactFan Member Forum Junkie Join Date: Aug 17, 2002 Posts: 98,983	If the show had after Three's Company like how Laverne and Shirley aired after Happy Days, the show would have been successful.

12-22-2010, 04:21 PM	#9
melskie007 Debate/laugh/Debate Occasional Poster Join Date: Dec 02, 2010 Location: san jose Posts: 68	no No, ropers were cool in my book! don nuts couldnt pull off what they did. Mr roper with his womanizing ways and his jokes and mrs roper always wanting mr roper but oddly enough this reminds me of a later show..? the bundy's. Why must they always copy synopsis from other shows? anyhow, I think what the ropers needed was more characters around this angle to carry on a show of their own..Here's a storyline: Downstairs lives two woman or three that mr roper stares at all the time and these woman have silly antics..maybe one is smart while the other two arent. then upstairs lives a buff hott man for mrs roper. And this stud is always doing stuff for her..this would have appealed to the younger audience if in fact they went with this premise.

12-23-2010, 02:02 AM	#10
ThomasE Member Moderator Forum Fanatic Join Date: Apr 04, 2000 Location: New York, New York, U.S.A. Posts: 10,857	I don't think it was age. To me, the writing and plots were weak along with the setting and neighbors. That about sums it up for me. Their age has nothing to do with it IMO.
	__________________ Check out my my "It's A Living" Facebook Fanpage!!! https://m.facebook.com/groups/107208...&source=result

12-23-2010, 12:53 PM	#11
Jude The Obscure Retired Eternal Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Dec 10, 2006 Posts: 7,519	It was supposed to a "fish out of water" premise with the lower class Ropers moving into a upper middle class existence and the writers really never developed it as such.

12-24-2010, 03:25 PM	#14
Retro4Life Accept No Substitutes Forum Veteran Join Date: Feb 04, 2009 Location: IL Posts: 6,708	I personally agree that the Ropers weren't too old to have a successful sitcom, but let's take Brian's point and examine it. There is an age bias on TV; sure you can cite The Golden Girls as an exception, but by and large there are almost no successful comedies that centered around characters over the age of 50.
	__________________ Alex Reiger :[Trying to convince Louie not to antagonize Bobby] "It's not hard to make people feel bad about their lives. What's hard is making people feel good about their lives."

01-12-2011, 08:57 PM	#15
MikeLutton Mike Lutton DVD Legend! Forum Veteran Join Date: Jan 05, 2005 Location: usa pennsyvania Posts: 6,873	i agree least their apartment would of had a nice makeover furley was ok but he was to cartoonish ropers was a lot better.furley as neighbor would of made more sense