What Was Worse: Three's a Crowd or The Ropers?
Which spinoff do you think sucked more?
shareThree's a Crowd was worse. Very low production standards (boom mic visible on numerous occasions, cut out of sets visible every now and then, etc.). The character of EZ was terrible. Vicky wasn't a good match for Jack.
For me, The Ropers is much more enjoyable. Tambor was hilarious and I liked the wife, plus Norman Fell was entertaining.
What I personally found off-putting about the series (aside from the inclusion of the obnoxious E.Z., who is an unlikable caricature) is part of the premise. Like The Ropers, this series decides to give our protagonist a clear antagonist. This time, it’s Mandan as Vicky’s father. While it could be argued that the landlords were an obstacle for the kids on Three’s Company, there was genuine affection, and those oppositional stories were downplayed as time went on. With a regular villain, it’s difficult to find the type of comedy that warrants fondness and the type of familiarity necessary for a weekly series. The series seems to realize this, and this conflict is mitigated near the end of the run, as the sparring between Bradford and his ex-wife, whose inclusion is one of the show’s few highlights, becomes more of a factor. It must be said, however, that this show is much better than The Ropers because Ritter is obviously capable of carrying the show, and so there are a few pretty good episodes (which I’ll be sharing below). Surprisingly, this focus is what keeps the show from working. The premise requires growth and maturation on Jack’s part, and the series can’t figure out the degree to which he needs to develop. If he doesn’t progress, the concept doesn’t work and the comedy becomes trite; if he progresses too much, his character is diluted and loses his comic edge. My gut tells me that if Vicky was better defined, this clash could be played out in the text as opposed to the design, as Jack’s emotional maturation could itself become the primary source of comedy.share
https://jacksonupperco.com/2015/06/24/why-did-i-spend-14-hours-of-my-life-watching-the-ropers/
Given the popularity of Three’s Company, The Ropers has enjoyed some syndication, particularly in the last decade, which has seen the show air on stations like DejaView and Antenna TV. The first season finale, which guest stars Richard Kline as Larry Dallas, and the season two premiere, in which the trio (Ritter, DeWitt, and Somers) appear, are both popular entries. Unfortunately, The Ropers is a far inferior series and, although some Three’s Company fans will defend the show out of loyalty, I must be truthful and say: the show would not have lasted a full second season if Fell and Lindley didn’t have the deal to return to their parent series. Episodes alternate between bad and blah. In addition to weak scripts and a laughably bad opening credit sequence, the show has a faulty design. The very funny Tambor is relegated to playing the series’ villain — being mean to pretty much everyone, even his boring wife, who never develops a personality beyond agreeableness — and given our already established fondness for the Ropers, it’s extremely difficult to like a character who antagonizes them. (Roper, though an occasional antagonist to the trio, was more of an obstacle: something that could be worked around, and worked over, in Helen’s case. Thus, he remained likable.) Furthermore, Stanley and Helen’s bickering, once sharp and fresh, now is tired and nasty (not to mention poorly written). There’s no variation on their dynamic. And it gets old fast. In early 1980, the series adds a young woman to the cast, Jenny (Louise Vallance), an annoying and unfunny runaway who’s designed to humanize the Ropers. It doesn’t work.