MovieChat Forums > Three's Company (1977) Discussion > So The Ropers sold their apartment build...

So The Ropers sold their apartment building so they could move into another one?

posted 5 years ago by Mister Babadook (2621)
8 replies | jump to latest

That always seemed stupid to me, they sell their building they own and are the landlords of, all so they can move into another apartment of which they don't own and have to answer to someone else.

And its not as if the apartment they moved into was that much nicer, and with as much money as they apparently got they could have easily afforded a nice house i'd think.

I mean how was they gonna pay the rent there every month? neither of them work.

[–] VIDEOSTOREVANDAL (313) 5 years ago

SITCOM

[–] Mister Babadook (2621) 5 years ago

I know they got that awful show The Ropers which failed, but in terms of the story what they did seemed dumb.

[–] hyperjet (633) 5 years ago

I think there was a setup episode in Three's Company for this but I can't remember the reason they moved. My guess would be maybe they wanted to retire and not have to worry about the stress and hard work of being landlords.

[–] wanton87 (934) 5 years ago

I recall reading a bit of trivia on the Roper’s spin off not too long ago. Apparently, Norman Fell was opposed to the idea from the start, but let the producers talk him into considering it if Three’s Company had a successful first season. It did, and the topic was revisited, but he still had some reservations. Apparently the producers had put his mind at ease, by suggesting that if for some reason the spin off was unsuccessful, that he could return to the original series. It was, but he didn’t, so they misled him there. To me, the Roper’s were probably the funniest part of the series, as I never really adapted to Mr Furley, nor thought that he was particularly funny.

The Roper’s spin off was largely forgettable. Some of you might have noticed that the evil girl from the bad seed, all grown up (Patty McCormack) played the wife of the Roper’s landlord (Jeffrey Tambor).

Three’s A Crowd was even more forgettable, though I do seem to recall that Jack’s girlfriend was somewhat cute.

[–] PaladinNJ (20308) 5 years ago

Norman Fell's deal was if the first season of the Ropers was unsuccessful and it was cancelled they would bring them back. The first season did ok and it was renewed but I believe they moved it to another timeslot for the second season and it failed. By then his original deal was null and void and Furley was ingrained into the original show.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Yeah. Don Knotts was popular in that part, I think, so there was no reason to bring the Roepers back.

[–] PaladinNJ (20308) 4 years ago

Wasn't the premise of the Ropers that he retired? That's why he sold the building.

[–] Ken12602 (481) 4 years ago

It made perfect sense that he would sell the building. It was an aging apartment building which means that there are a lot of maintenance to be done on it and it had to be done by either Mr Roper (who was getting older and probably didn't want to have to do it anymore) or they had to pay someone to do it (and we know Mr Roper was cheap).