I wonder why the producers felt they needed to REMOVE the Ropers off the show because - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

TVFactFan · 08-10-2003, 11:14 AM

Three's Company was doing well at the time. That spinoff was a way of getting rid of them because we know that the Ropers didn't generate that many laughs. I guess we will never know why they didn't want the Ropers on the show anymore. Believe me the producers knew that the show would fail and didn't care because they wanted to replace them anyway. They probably felt that a lanflord who was not married would work better than a married couple which is why they never gave Mr. Furley a wife. Does this make sense to anyone?

JamesC · 08-10-2003, 01:01 PM

No, it doesn't. Creating a spinoff not only takes time, money and support from the network, but if a show you produce fails, it hurts your reputation and closes doors. I can't imagine the producers used a spinoff as a vehicle to get rid of the Ropers knowing the show would fail when they could have, possibily, just fired them. I believe they got a little greddy and thought they could pull it off since the Ropers were popular characters.

Once Don Knotts arrived, they realized they had a hot commodity and perfered his character over the Ropers. Perhaps they felt one landlord change was enough.

JamesC

TVFactFan · 08-10-2003, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JamesC
No, it doesn't. Creating a spinoff not only takes time, money and support from the network, but if a show you produce fails, it hurts your reputation and closes doors. I can't imagine the producers used a spinoff as a vehicle to get rid of the Ropers knowing the show would fail when they could have, possibily, just fired them. I believe they got a little greddy and thought they could pull it off since the Ropers were popular characters.

Once Don Knotts arrived, they realized they had a hot commodity and perfered his character over the Ropers. Perhaps they felt one landlord change was enough.

JamesC

But the spinoff still confuses me because th Ropers had nothing to do with the Show's success. THe show would had succeded if it was aired RIGHT AFTER Three';s company on Tuesday night.

David · 08-10-2003, 01:47 PM

i think they just wanted to copy the British people again

Sean Snow · 08-10-2003, 03:22 PM

The Ropers were an important part of TC. Yes, it could've succeded without them since they were only supporting characters. But they were popular, and, IMO, funny. ABC probably wanted to expand on TC's popularity by taking some of the characters and making a show about them. If the Ropers didn't generate any laughs, then why did the audience laugh at them during their scenes?

I agree with JamesC. If they wanted to get rid of Audra Lindley and Norman Fell, they could've just fired them. Mr. Furley and the Ropers had the same effect on the show, as you can see with the ratings. It made sense to not bring back the Ropers - after all, paying one person to do what two people had done before is cheaper.

And the show wasn't a complete failure. It made it into the top 10 in it's first season. It had no chance of surviving in the time slot it had in it's second season.

hawaii five-o · 08-10-2003, 03:25 PM

I think the failure of "The Ropers" has something to do with the Communists.

TVFactFan · 08-10-2003, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sean Snow
The Ropers were an important part of TC. Yes, it could've succeded without them since they were only supporting characters. But they were popular, and, IMO, funny. ABC probably wanted to expand on TC's popularity by taking some of the characters and making a show about them. If the Ropers didn't generate any laughs, then why did the audience laugh at them during their scenes?

I agree with JamesC. If they wanted to get rid of Audra Lindley and Norman Fell, they could've just fired them. Mr. Furley and the Ropers had the same effect on the show, as you can see with the ratings. It made sense to not bring back the Ropers - after all, paying one person to do what two people had done before is cheaper.

And the show wasn't a complete failure. It made it into the top 10 in it's first season. It had no chance of surviving in the time slot it had in it's second season.

Keeping the Ropers on Tuesday night and putting it in the 9;30pm time slot would have keep it on the air as long as Three's Company.

Janice · 08-11-2003, 12:32 PM

Off topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread---does anyone notice how Mr. Roper looks directly into the camera sometimes, right at you?
He breaks the fourth wall in a sense.

Mr. Television · 08-11-2003, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Janice
Off topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread---does anyone notice how Mr. Roper looks directly into the camera sometimes, right at you?
He breaks the fourth wall in a sense.

I always thought that was funny. They left an opening for the Ropers to return to the show if their series had lasted one year or less. Because it lasted a little over a year, they weren't asked back. I think they would have returned anyway,but by that time audiences had accepted Mr. Furley as the new landlord and there wasn't any room for two landlords.

TVFactFan · 08-11-2003, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Janice
Off topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread---does anyone notice how Mr. Roper looks directly into the camera sometimes, right at you?
He breaks the fourth wall in a sense.

That is what I missed the most when the Ropers left.

David · 08-11-2003, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sitcom Analyzer
Keeping the Ropers on Tuesday night and putting it in the 9;30pm time slot would have keep it on the air as long as Three's Company.

i also think they shoulda kept it after Threes Company. I mean, duh. common sense??!?!

Christmas Snow · 08-15-2003, 12:56 AM

I hated it when The ropers left. Helen Roper (Audra Lindley) absolutely cracks me up! Especially in the episode "Jack's Navy Pal"

Getalifeboy · 09-19-2003, 04:43 PM

Quote: Off topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread---does anyone notice how Mr. Roper looks directly into the camera sometimes, right at you?
He breaks the fourth wall in a sense.

I loved that...I think it was breaking character and sharing a laugh with the TV viewing audience....Letting us all in on the gag...And letting us feel part of the show...I always got a kick out of it!!

Brian Damage · 09-19-2003, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sitcom Analyzer
Three's Company was doing well at the time. That spinoff was a way of getting rid of them because we know that the Ropers didn't generate that many laughs. I guess we will never know why they didn't want the Ropers on the show anymore. Believe me the producers knew that the show would fail and didn't care because they wanted to replace them anyway. They probably felt that a lanflord who was not married would work better than a married couple which is why they never gave Mr. Furley a wife. Does this make sense to anyone?

Your analogies are soooooooo stupid.

LILFACE23 · 09-19-2003, 09:10 PM

In the "behind the camera" movie, it did seem like they screwed everyone on that show. I think they just pushed it too far with their spin offs. I think it would have lasted another 5, maybe 10 years more if they would've kept the same gang and eventually reunited Chrissy. Could you imagine what their lives would've been like if they had, our lives for that matter. We would've been laughing even longer. Hopefully someone on that set learned that money isn't everything. I'm not referring to Suzanne, but the producers. I felt bad for Suzanne when they showed her crying about just being on the phone for her final episode, i really think at that point she wanted to turn back time and make a mends. It's amazing how one person can change everything for the people around her. I really wonder what it would've been if none of that would have happened.

08-10-2003, 11:14 AM	#1
TVFactFan Member Forum Junkie Join Date: Aug 17, 2002 Posts: 98,982	I wonder why the producers felt they needed to REMOVE the Ropers off the show because Three's Company was doing well at the time. That spinoff was a way of getting rid of them because we know that the Ropers didn't generate that many laughs. I guess we will never know why they didn't want the Ropers on the show anymore. Believe me the producers knew that the show would fail and didn't care because they wanted to replace them anyway. They probably felt that a lanflord who was not married would work better than a married couple which is why they never gave Mr. Furley a wife. Does this make sense to anyone?

08-10-2003, 01:47 PM	#4
David mcphee. Forum Superstar Join Date: Jan 30, 2003 Location: jacksonville, FL. Posts: 28,115	i think they just wanted to copy the British people again
	__________________ v. 39 - katharine and chris elliott, you rock.

08-10-2003, 03:22 PM	#5
Sean Snow moo Forum Fanatic Join Date: May 06, 2001 Location: Georgia Posts: 10,407	The Ropers were an important part of TC. Yes, it could've succeded without them since they were only supporting characters. But they were popular, and, IMO, funny. ABC probably wanted to expand on TC's popularity by taking some of the characters and making a show about them. If the Ropers didn't generate any laughs, then why did the audience laugh at them during their scenes? I agree with JamesC. If they wanted to get rid of Audra Lindley and Norman Fell, they could've just fired them. Mr. Furley and the Ropers had the same effect on the show, as you can see with the ratings. It made sense to not bring back the Ropers - after all, paying one person to do what two people had done before is cheaper. And the show wasn't a complete failure. It made it into the top 10 in it's first season. It had no chance of surviving in the time slot it had in it's second season.
	__________________ If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." - John F. Kennedy

08-15-2003, 12:56 AM	#12
Christmas Snow The original blonde Forum Regular Join Date: Jul 20, 2003 Location: From Fresno, but now I live in Santa Monica with my best friends, Jack and Janet! Posts: 662	I hated it when The ropers left. Helen Roper (Audra Lindley) absolutely cracks me up! Especially in the episode "Jack's Navy Pal"
	__________________ JENNIFER YOUR MY AMERICAN IDOL BABE!!

09-19-2003, 04:43 PM	#13
Getalifeboy Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Aug 14, 2001 Location: bloomfield NJ USA Posts: 441	Quote: Off topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread---does anyone notice how Mr. Roper looks directly into the camera sometimes, right at you? He breaks the fourth wall in a sense. I loved that...I think it was breaking character and sharing a laugh with the TV viewing audience....Letting us all in on the gag...And letting us feel part of the show...I always got a kick out of it!!
	__________________ "If life is a bowl of cherries then what is death..Rhubarb???

08-10-2003, 01:01 PM	#2
JamesC Member Occasional Poster Join Date: May 14, 2003 Posts: 44	No, it doesn't. Creating a spinoff not only takes time, money and support from the network, but if a show you produce fails, it hurts your reputation and closes doors. I can't imagine the producers used a spinoff as a vehicle to get rid of the Ropers knowing the show would fail when they could have, possibily, just fired them. I believe they got a little greddy and thought they could pull it off since the Ropers were popular characters. Once Don Knotts arrived, they realized they had a hot commodity and perfered his character over the Ropers. Perhaps they felt one landlord change was enough. JamesC

08-10-2003, 03:25 PM	#6
hawaii five-o Book 'Em, Dano Senior Member Join Date: Jun 27, 2003 Location: At home, eating cereal straight out of the box Posts: 1,406	I think the failure of "The Ropers" has something to do with the Communists.

08-11-2003, 12:32 PM	#8
Janice Retired Admin - Hollywood Swingin' Forum Legend Join Date: Aug 03, 2001 Location: Beantown Posts: 36,388	Off topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread---does anyone notice how Mr. Roper looks directly into the camera sometimes, right at you? He breaks the fourth wall in a sense.

09-19-2003, 09:10 PM	#15
LILFACE23 MISS YOU GUYS Senior Member Join Date: Sep 17, 2003 Location: NEW YORK Posts: 1,354	In the "behind the camera" movie, it did seem like they screwed everyone on that show. I think they just pushed it too far with their spin offs. I think it would have lasted another 5, maybe 10 years more if they would've kept the same gang and eventually reunited Chrissy. Could you imagine what their lives would've been like if they had, our lives for that matter. We would've been laughing even longer. Hopefully someone on that set learned that money isn't everything. I'm not referring to Suzanne, but the producers. I felt bad for Suzanne when they showed her crying about just being on the phone for her final episode, i really think at that point she wanted to turn back time and make a mends. It's amazing how one person can change everything for the people around her. I really wonder what it would've been if none of that would have happened.
	__________________ LILFACE REST IN PEACE JOHN MAY YOU MAKE THE HEAVENS LAUGH AS YOU DID US. GOD BLESS YOU ALWAYS WE MISS YOU AND LOVE YOU WITH ALL OUR HEARTS