Were The Ropers Spun Off Because They Were Popular Or Because The Britcom Version Did - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

Brian Damage · 09-03-2011, 04:40 PM

Just curious, were the Ropers really that popular with audiences that they needed a show of their own or because they were just copying the Britcom version that spun off George & Mildred from Man About the House???

TVFactFan · 09-03-2011, 06:35 PM

Because they received a lot of fan mail expressing that they are not a fan of seeing the landlords and wanted to see the trio more. So instead of firing Norman and Audra, they gave them a shot at their own show and made up a creative reason to get rid of them if the spinoff didn't last

This is only my guess-lol

Mr. Television · 09-03-2011, 06:46 PM

I'm pretty sure The Ropers were popular. They wouldn't spin off characters if they didn't have an audience ...they'd just fire them like they did with Ann Wedgeworth. The problem with the Ropers was the supporting cast. They just didn't jell with Stanley & Helen like the trio did. And they moved the show opposite CHIPS on Saturday night. If it would have stayed on Tuesdays after TC, it might have caught on eventually. I think it was very ill conceived. I was only a kid then and didn't read the entertainment papers back then so I was shocked when I watched the episode where Stanley sold the APT. Building. I guess today with the internet, everyone knows about these things way ahead of time. lol

1960'sTVfan · 09-03-2011, 06:51 PM

I seem to recall it had something to do with money. Norman Fell and Audra Lindley requested pay raises for their roles on Three's Company, the network said no but created The Ropers series where Norman and Audra could be the lead characters and therefore justify a higher salary.

Brian Damage · 09-03-2011, 08:20 PM

Interesting takes! In my opinion, I really feel like they wanted a way out with both Norman & Audra, perhaps because they realized Don Knotts was interested. lol

Big3sCompanyFan · 09-06-2011, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

Because they received a lot of fan mail expressing that they are not a fan of seeing the landlords and wanted to see the trio more. So instead of firing Norman and Audra, they gave them a shot at their own show and made up a creative reason to get rid of them if the spinoff didn't last

This is only my guess-lol

Wow, is that really true?? But if they didn't want to see the landlords they would've never done the Ropers show.

Got a link for that?

TVFactFan · 09-06-2011, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big3sCompanyFan

Wow, is that really true?? But if they didn't want to see the landlords they would've never done the Ropers show.

Got a link for that?

You didn't see that I posted it was just a GUESS? That's what I believe because why would they bring in another Landlord to replace them? The Trio could have paid their rent off screen and we didn't have to see another landlord

Big3sCompanyFan · 09-06-2011, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

You didn't see that I posted it was just a GUESS? That's what I believe because why would they bring in another Landlord to replace them? The Trio could have paid their rent off screen and we didn't have to see another landlord

They got screwed over!

When the Ropers started they got great ratings since it was right after 3's Company. At the time analysts said if they just kept it there the Ropers would've had a long run!

So WTF did ABC purposely sabotage the show by moving it away from 3's Company??

TVFactFan · 09-06-2011, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big3sCompanyFan

They got screwed over!

When the Ropers started they got great ratings since it was right after 3's Company. At the time analysts said if they just kept it there the Ropers would've had a long run!

So WTF did ABC purposely sabotage the show by moving it away from 3's Company??

The Ropers never aired right after Three's Company on Tuesday nights in the 78-79 season. It aired at 10pm on Tuesday Nights after Taxi.

Big3sCompanyFan · 09-06-2011, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

The Ropers never aired right after Three's Company on Tuesday nights in the 78-79 season. It aired at 10pm on Tuesday Nights after Taxi.

So it was the same night as 3's Company. All I know is I saw a report once on how it did great on the SAME night as 3's Company and then when they pulled it and it moved it tanked!

WHY did they move it?? It had good ratings so they should've just left it there!

TVFactFan · 09-06-2011, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big3sCompanyFan

So it was the same night as 3's Company. All I know is I saw a report once on how it did great on the SAME night as 3's Company and then when they pulled it and it moved it tanked!

WHY did they move it?? It had good ratings so they should've just left it there!

But the success had nothing to do with Three's Company, what happened was the Three's Company season had already ended so it was no more new episodes. So it was easy to watch the spinoff.

They moved it because they probably thought that since it was a top ten show it would help the saturday night lineup.

Zeepers · 09-10-2011, 05:45 PM

Here's my best guess, and please keep in mind it is nothing more than a guess, because I wasn't even born until years after the show ended and only have access to the same information online that everyone else has.

I think that ABC probably felt that the 10:00 p.m. slot on Tuesday nights was better suited for an hourlong drama. Most networks show dramas that late at night anyway. So coming in to the 1979-80 season, ABC executives felt they had a possible hit in the drama The Lazarus Syndrome. That quickly flopped, so they yanked it for the hourlong Hart to Hart, which became a popular hit and ran for 5 years.

Obviously, network executives didn't have much faith in The Ropers, and unfortunately, it's not hard to see why, since the plots were pretty strained, the cast didn't gel, and the jokes few and far between. So one can surmise that whether they moved The Ropers primarily to make way for a new Tuesday-night drama or to buffer a weak Saturday lineup, when the Saturday move resulted in a huge ratings drop, they weren't going to save The Ropers. They weren't going to mess with Hart to Hart or move or bump any other half-hour or hourlong show they already had or were planning to add to their lineup on any other day in the 1980-81 season. So did they purposely screw The Ropers by moving it to Saturday? Probably. Let's at least agree that they were playing with fire and they had to know it.

ABC was pretty stingy at this time despite all its hits. The Farrah Fawcett situation happened on ABC, and obviously Suzanne Somers was ABC. ABC was kind to Joanie and Chachi after their spinoff flopped, but it was easy to bring them back to Happy Days, a long-running flagship which was on its last legs anyway. (TV actors weren't treated well at all at this time, as Suzanne would tell you; Larry Hagman had to fight for a higher salary, while CBS made an example of McLean Stevenson, and later Wayne Rogers when they made a Trapper John spinoff with Pernell Roberts instead. But I digress.)

I don't believe that The Ropers spinoff had anything to do with people tiring of seeing the Ropers on Three's Company. If anything, pin the blame on more corporate greed, as ABC executives on a highly-rated show with a big enough ensemble were following the lead of both the UK series and other successful 1970s comedies that produced spinoffs, namely Mary Tyler Moore and All in the Family. On that note, Three's Company's numerous cast changes provide the familiar Hollywood lesson not to mess with success, and I say this as someone who loved all of the cast members, including Lana and Cindy.

TVFactFan · 09-10-2011, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeepers

Here's my best guess, and please keep in mind it is nothing more than a guess, because I wasn't even born until years after the show ended and only have access to the same information online that everyone else has.

I think that ABC probably felt that the 10:00 p.m. slot on Tuesday nights was better suited for an hourlong drama. Most networks show dramas that late at night anyway. So coming in to the 1979-80 season, ABC executives felt they had a possible hit in the drama The Lazarus Syndrome. That quickly flopped, so they yanked it for the hourlong Hart to Hart, which became a popular hit and ran for 5 years.

Obviously, network executives didn't have much faith in The Ropers, and unfortunately, it's not hard to see why, since the plots were pretty strained, the cast didn't gel, and the jokes few and far between. So one can surmise that whether they moved The Ropers primarily to make way for a new Tuesday-night drama or to buffer a weak Saturday lineup, when the Saturday move resulted in a huge ratings drop, they weren't going to save The Ropers. They weren't going to mess with Hart to Hart or move or bump any other half-hour or hourlong show they already had or were planning to add to their lineup on any other day in the 1980-81 season. So did they purposely screw The Ropers by moving it to Saturday? Probably. Let's at least agree that they were playing with fire and they had to know it.

ABC was pretty stingy at this time despite all its hits. The Farrah Fawcett situation happened on ABC, and obviously Suzanne Somers was ABC. ABC was kind to Joanie and Chachi after their spinoff flopped, but it was easy to bring them back to Happy Days, a long-running flagship which was on its last legs anyway. (TV actors weren't treated well at all at this time, as Suzanne would tell you; Larry Hagman had to fight for a higher salary, while CBS made an example of McLean Stevenson, and later Wayne Rogers when they made a Trapper John spinoff with Pernell Roberts instead. But I digress.)

I don't believe that The Ropers spinoff had anything to do with people tiring of seeing the Ropers on Three's Company. If anything, pin the blame on more corporate greed, as ABC executives on a highly-rated show with a big enough ensemble were following the lead of both the UK series and other successful 1970s comedies that produced spinoffs, namely Mary Tyler Moore and All in the Family. On that note, Three's Company's numerous cast changes provide the familiar Hollywood lesson not to mess with success, and I say this as someone who loved all of the cast members, including Lana and Cindy.

Once the network sees that a new spinoff did well following the parent show, they gave the new spinoff a new night like how ABC did with Joanie Loves Chachi. When JLC aired after Happy Days, it was number 3 in the country but once it moved to Thursday Nights it was over.

ABC did the same thing to the Ropers after seeing the success in it's first season but it was only because Three's Company already ended it's season for 78-79 season.

Brian Damage · 09-10-2011, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

Once the network sees that a new spinoff did well following the parent show, they gave the new spinoff a new night like how ABC did with Joanie Loves Chachi. When JLC aired after Happy Days, it was number 3 in the country but once it moved to Thursday Nights it was over.

ABC did the same thing to the Ropers after seeing the success in it's first season but it was only because Three's Company already ended it's season for 78-79 season.

That was a common mistake by the networks. In the case of the Ropers though, the show wasn't that well planned.

rcbrad · 09-12-2011, 08:19 PM

I think that they were popular with the audience. I am sure ABC thought more is better and figured that the Ropers were strong enough to star in their own show. It was evidently too soon to move the show. Many shows that were once popular and were then moved to Saturdays, ended up being canceled, due to poor ratings.

Part of the problem too, is that ABC had so many hits during this time and they just had too much product. ABC also seemed to have a knack for destroying good shows. Just consider what happened to Mork and Mindy and Angie. Among other things, the numerous schedule changes do not help established shows. It confuses the audience.

09-03-2011, 04:40 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	Were The Ropers Spun Off Because They Were Popular Or Because The Britcom Version Did Just curious, were the Ropers really that popular with audiences that they needed a show of their own or because they were just copying the Britcom version that spun off George & Mildred from Man About the House???
	__________________ The Key to the Kingdom of Heaven: John 3:3 *Money Doesn't Buy Happiness...But I'd Rather Cry in My Private Jet*

09-03-2011, 06:46 PM	#3
Mr. Television 22 Years at Sitcoms Online Forum Icon Join Date: Jun 06, 2003 Location: Somewhere you're Not Posts: 62,127	I'm pretty sure The Ropers were popular. They wouldn't spin off characters if they didn't have an audience ...they'd just fire them like they did with Ann Wedgeworth. The problem with the Ropers was the supporting cast. They just didn't jell with Stanley & Helen like the trio did. And they moved the show opposite CHIPS on Saturday night. If it would have stayed on Tuesdays after TC, it might have caught on eventually. I think it was very ill conceived. I was only a kid then and didn't read the entertainment papers back then so I was shocked when I watched the episode where Stanley sold the APT. Building. I guess today with the internet, everyone knows about these things way ahead of time. lol
	__________________ Sonny

09-03-2011, 06:35 PM	#2
TVFactFan Member Forum Junkie Join Date: Aug 17, 2002 Posts: 98,983	Because they received a lot of fan mail expressing that they are not a fan of seeing the landlords and wanted to see the trio more. So instead of firing Norman and Audra, they gave them a shot at their own show and made up a creative reason to get rid of them if the spinoff didn't last This is only my guess-lol

09-03-2011, 06:51 PM	#4
1960'sTVfan Member Forum Veteran Join Date: Sep 30, 2009 Posts: 6,055	I seem to recall it had something to do with money. Norman Fell and Audra Lindley requested pay raises for their roles on Three's Company, the network said no but created The Ropers series where Norman and Audra could be the lead characters and therefore justify a higher salary.

09-03-2011, 08:20 PM	#5
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	Interesting takes! In my opinion, I really feel like they wanted a way out with both Norman & Audra, perhaps because they realized Don Knotts was interested. lol

09-10-2011, 05:45 PM	#12
Zeepers Member First Time Poster Join Date: Sep 10, 2011 Posts: 1	Here's my best guess, and please keep in mind it is nothing more than a guess, because I wasn't even born until years after the show ended and only have access to the same information online that everyone else has. I think that ABC probably felt that the 10:00 p.m. slot on Tuesday nights was better suited for an hourlong drama. Most networks show dramas that late at night anyway. So coming in to the 1979-80 season, ABC executives felt they had a possible hit in the drama The Lazarus Syndrome. That quickly flopped, so they yanked it for the hourlong Hart to Hart, which became a popular hit and ran for 5 years. Obviously, network executives didn't have much faith in The Ropers, and unfortunately, it's not hard to see why, since the plots were pretty strained, the cast didn't gel, and the jokes few and far between. So one can surmise that whether they moved The Ropers primarily to make way for a new Tuesday-night drama or to buffer a weak Saturday lineup, when the Saturday move resulted in a huge ratings drop, they weren't going to save The Ropers. They weren't going to mess with Hart to Hart or move or bump any other half-hour or hourlong show they already had or were planning to add to their lineup on any other day in the 1980-81 season. So did they purposely screw The Ropers by moving it to Saturday? Probably. Let's at least agree that they were playing with fire and they had to know it. ABC was pretty stingy at this time despite all its hits. The Farrah Fawcett situation happened on ABC, and obviously Suzanne Somers was ABC. ABC was kind to Joanie and Chachi after their spinoff flopped, but it was easy to bring them back to Happy Days, a long-running flagship which was on its last legs anyway. (TV actors weren't treated well at all at this time, as Suzanne would tell you; Larry Hagman had to fight for a higher salary, while CBS made an example of McLean Stevenson, and later Wayne Rogers when they made a Trapper John spinoff with Pernell Roberts instead. But I digress.) I don't believe that The Ropers spinoff had anything to do with people tiring of seeing the Ropers on Three's Company. If anything, pin the blame on more corporate greed, as ABC executives on a highly-rated show with a big enough ensemble were following the lead of both the UK series and other successful 1970s comedies that produced spinoffs, namely Mary Tyler Moore and All in the Family. On that note, Three's Company's numerous cast changes provide the familiar Hollywood lesson not to mess with success, and I say this as someone who loved all of the cast members, including Lana and Cindy.

09-12-2011, 08:19 PM	#15
rcbrad Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Jan 21, 2007 Posts: 479	I think that they were popular with the audience. I am sure ABC thought more is better and figured that the Ropers were strong enough to star in their own show. It was evidently too soon to move the show. Many shows that were once popular and were then moved to Saturdays, ended up being canceled, due to poor ratings. Part of the problem too, is that ABC had so many hits during this time and they just had too much product. ABC also seemed to have a knack for destroying good shows. Just consider what happened to Mork and Mindy and Angie. Among other things, the numerous schedule changes do not help established shows. It confuses the audience.