What Norman Fell said on THS about coming back to Three's Company was false

[TVFactFan]

He said something completely different in a 1979 interview with Philadelphia Inquirer reporter Harry Harris. He told Harry that the deal was they would do a 6 episode during TC hiatus and then ABC will see if it has a audience. And if it does then they will get 22 eps for the fall season. If it dont then him and Audry would just continue on TC in season 4.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4Kchb6EYvM&t=5992s


On the True Hollywood story, he said they told him they could come back if they show didnt last a full season Why did he say something completely different starting at 39:24 mark?

That whole Ropers not being able to come back never made sense to me because how would they come back if Mr. Furley was already on a full season? Was they going to kill him off so they could come back

[BestTVever]

Maybe I am missing something but this controversy is simple to understand and I dont see inconsistency of what happened. Norman wanted a guarantee if The Ropers did not last they could come back to TC. The THS states it was only one season. Other reports stated it was for 2 seasons. I wish The Ropers never left so I am in his camp. But the show did last over 1 season. The controversy is the first 6 episodes. Was that considered season 1? By Threes Company it was. The first season of TC was 6 episodes. It has its own DVD titled Season 1.
I get why ABC was reluctant to bring them back. Suzanne just left and Jenilee was leaving. Furley just entered the show. There were so many revolving doors and they probably thought it was risky.
Like I said, I am on Norman's side and wish he came back or never left. But if I was a judge ruling on what the contract said I would have to side with ABC.
I do not buy into conspiracy theories that Ritter wanted them off the show or ABC tried to purposely kill The Ropers. Threes Company was HUGE and it made sense to milk it for all it was worth. Norman had good senses to be reluctant to do it. But him and Audra made some good coin being the star of their own series for 1.5 years.rs.
I think The Ropers is a better show than Threes A Crowd.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by BestTVever

Maybe I am missing something but this controversy is simple to understand and I dont see inconsistency of what happened. Norman wanted a guarantee if The Ropers did not last they could come back to TC. The THS states it was only one season. Other reports stated it was for 2 seasons. I wish The Ropers never left so I am in his camp. But the show did last over 1 season. The controversy is the first 6 episodes. Was that considered season 1? By Threes Company it was. The first season of TC was 6 episodes. It has its own DVD titled Season 1.
I get why ABC was reluctant to bring them back. Suzanne just left and Jenilee was leaving. Furley just entered the show. There were so many revolving doors and they probably thought it was risky.
Like I said, I am on Norman's side and wish he came back or never left. But if I was a judge ruling on what the contract said I would have to side with ABC.
I do not buy into conspiracy theories that Ritter wanted them off the show or ABC tried to purposely kill The Ropers. Threes Company was HUGE and it made sense to milk it for all it was worth. Norman had good senses to be reluctant to do it. But him and Audra made some good coin being the star of their own series for 1.5 years.rs.
I think The Ropers is a better show than Threes A Crowd.

He told the Philly reporter in 1979 that the guarantee was if the show failed in the spring they would be back on TC in fall of 79. But years later he said something completely different on THS and mentioned 1 season. How was he going to come back after 1 season if TC already had a new landlord? Thats why he was told that if the show didnt have good ratings after 6 eps in April of 79 they would be back because no new landlord was added to the show yet. So he didnt even understand what he was saying made no sense. They couldnt come back after 1980 because it was someone already living in their apt



And based on the article, THS reported false information because nothing was said about one season. And yes those 6 eps was considered 1 season

[BestTVever]

Not sure I see a huge difference of what he said in 1979. Ratings did decline in 1979 but I think it was successful enough to deserve a real full season. The first 6 episodes was a mixed bag with ratings. Had the show tanked in 1979 then no doubt the Ropers would be back on TC. But it got a green light for another season. I do not buy into the conspiracy that ABC knew the show would be cancelled but needed to let it flop in a full season to officially part ways with the Ropers. Its interesting Audra put none of these conditions in her contract. I felt bad for Norman though. But Don was an incredible replacement but IMHO The Ropers were better as a team.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by BestTVever

Not sure I see a huge difference of what he said in 1979. Ratings did decline in 1979 but I think it was successful enough to deserve a real full season. The first 6 episodes was a mixed bag with ratings. Had the show tanked in 1979 then no doubt the Ropers would be back on TC. But it got a green light for another season. I do not buy into the conspiracy that ABC knew the show would be cancelled but needed to let it flop in a full season to officially part ways with the Ropers. Its interesting Audra put none of these conditions in her contract. I felt bad for Norman though. But Don was an incredible replacement but IMHO The Ropers were better as a team.

The agreement he said he had in 79 was if the show was not picked up for the fall him and Audra would be back on TC. Not sure why he changed it for THS

[BestTVever]

I am guessing but I think the controversy or discrepancy you are pointing out has to do with if the show was cancelled after its first season they would be back on TC. In a sense he was right but in a sense he was wrong. Had there not been 6 episodes during the end of the TC 3rd season and just was picked up in the fall then the Ropers would have been back. But ABC pointed out it was 2 seasons even though season 1 was only 6 episodes.
I do not think Norman was misleading or lying when he said what he said in 1979. Generically he was saying the same thing. If the show does not make it past season 1 he could go back.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by BestTVever

I am guessing but I think the controversy or discrepancy you are pointing out has to do with if the show was cancelled after its first season they would be back on TC. In a sense he was right but in a sense he was wrong. Had there not been 6 episodes during the end of the TC 3rd season and just was picked up in the fall then the Ropers would have been back. But ABC pointed out it was 2 seasons even though season 1 was only 6 episodes.
I do not think Norman was misleading or lying when he said what he said in 1979. Generically he was saying the same thing. If the show does not make it past season 1 he could go back.

So actually read what he said in 79 and watched what he said on THS in 98 and think its the same? lol

[ClarenceAlabama]

The first season of The Ropers had only 6 episodes just like Three's Company.

If The Ropers bombed in the ratings during the first season (6 episodes), they would have been back on Three's Company before they hired Furley.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by ClarenceAlabama

The first season of The Ropers had only 6 episodes just like Three's Company.

If The Ropers bombed in the ratings during the first season (6 episodes), they would have been back on Three's Company before they hired Furley.

And he knew that not sure why he went on THS talking crazy

[ClarenceAlabama]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

And he knew that not sure why he went on THS talking crazy

You're right! I just rewatched it.

After The Ropers was cancelled, he said, "Now I can go back per our deal". He knew the deal was if the show was cancelled in the first season. I don't know why he would say that.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by ClarenceAlabama

You're right! I just rewatched it.

After The Ropers was cancelled, he said, "Now I can go back per our deal". He knew the deal was if the show was cancelled in the first season. I don't know why he would say that.

After Mr. Furley was already the new landlord for a whole season

[BestTVever]

The show was going to fail. However IMHO ABC thought too much of the show to move it to Saturday night at the start of the second season. Instead of a slow decline it was rather rapid. Then ABC changed the time again later in the season.
The show's premise and structure and scripts is what killed the show. But I think it could have lasted longer with changes and having it air right after TC.
When its viewed by the lens of today people allege that ABC spent so little on the show that they must of purposely wanted it to fail. However I see it different. TC was the hottest show on TV. ABC sort of "mailed in" this one relying too much on the limelight of the original show. They already had a huge following and had some of the funniest jokes and scenes on TC. One of the highest rated episodes of TC was when the Ropers announced they were leaving. Everyone tuned in to see the new show but then discovered it was not that great. I still think it could of worked. Stanley should have resumed his role as apt manager or maintenance guy. Giving Stanley and Helen nothing to do was a mistake. The generation gap made their intrusion in the kid's apt and life funny. The Brookes did not have that dynamic.
One of the biggest reasons ABC did not want back the Ropers was money. They would have to pay 2 landlords instead of 1. Rather sad for the biggest show on TV at the time. Also this was just when Suzanne wanted a new contract. The show was becoming a revolving door. Had Suzanne stayed who knows.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by BestTVever

The show was going to fail. However IMHO ABC thought too much of the show to move it to Saturday night at the start of the second season. Instead of a slow decline it was rather rapid. Then ABC changed the time again later in the season.
The show's premise and structure and scripts is what killed the show. But I think it could have lasted longer with changes and having it air right after TC.
When its viewed by the lens of today people allege that ABC spent so little on the show that they must of purposely wanted it to fail. However I see it different. TC was the hottest show on TV. ABC sort of "mailed in" this one relying too much on the limelight of the original show. They already had a huge following and had some of the funniest jokes and scenes on TC. One of the highest rated episodes of TC was when the Ropers announced they were leaving. Everyone tuned in to see the new show but then discovered it was not that great. I still think it could of worked. Stanley should have resumed his role as apt manager or maintenance guy. Giving Stanley and Helen nothing to do was a mistake. The generation gap made their intrusion in the kid's apt and life funny. The Brookes did not have that dynamic.
One of the biggest reasons ABC did not want back the Ropers was money. They would have to pay 2 landlords instead of 1. Rather sad for the biggest show on TV at the time. Also this was just when Suzanne wanted a new contract. The show was becoming a revolving door. Had Suzanne stayed who knows.

Guess we will never know how it would have worked because it was only after TC once when TC had a new episode. So that first ep really dont count because it was the debut which everyone watches. After that episode it aired after Queens blvd for the remainder of season 1 and then once TC came off hiatus. So ABC never tried it like Happy Days and L&S or like CBS did with All in the Family and Jeffersons

[BestTVever]

Originally Posted by TVFactFan

Guess we will never know how it would have worked because it was only after TC once when TC had a new episode. So that first ep really dont count because it was the debut which everyone watches. After that episode it aired after Queens blvd for the remainder of season 1 and then once TC came off hiatus. So ABC never tried it like Happy Days and L&S or like CBS did with All in the Family and Jeffersons

I believe ABC thought their fandom from TC would just carry their show. TC was a cultural phenomenon. It was so popular and The Ropers were a part of the reason it was so popular. In many TC episodes it begins in the Roper's apartment with their banter back and forth even though the episode was not about them. Or it would end with them in bed or Stanley's jokes. I think ABC really thought "we don't have to spend much on an opening, we don't have to work scripts, etc. Their magic on TC was going to make another successful show. But the Ropers were the legs of TC. The Ropers needed the kids. Mr Roper was the kid's foil many times and Helen was the heroine. Now it was the neighbor that was the foil for Roper.

[TVFactFan]

Originally Posted by BestTVever

I believe ABC thought their fandom from TC would just carry their show. TC was a cultural phenomenon. It was so popular and The Ropers were a part of the reason it was so popular. In many TC episodes it begins in the Roper's apartment with their banter back and forth even though the episode was not about them. Or it would end with them in bed or Stanley's jokes. I think ABC really thought "we don't have to spend much on an opening, we don't have to work scripts, etc. Their magic on TC was going to make another successful show. But the Ropers were the legs of TC. The Ropers needed the kids. Mr Roper was the kid's foil many times and Helen was the heroine. Now it was the neighbor that was the foil for Roper.

I realize now I only wanted to see them when they was around the trio. those scenes when they was alone downstairs I wasnt too thrilled to see lol