It was Mr. Roper, and the nickname was Tinkerbell.
That was funny. Thanks, needed a good laugh today. I liked all the little details in the flashback, especially Ritter trying to immitate Don Knotts as Mr Roper (or did he play Hurley?). What does Don Knotts say at the end right after “I always knew you were fruity”? I can’t make it out over the laughter.
Knotts was Mr Furley. (The one who tried to ‘cure’ Jack.) Norman Fell played Mr Roper. (The one who delighted in calling him Tinkerbell.)
I’ve had a few late nights recently and have seen a bunch of episodes of it which brought back a ton of childhood memories of never wanting to miss the show because I thought it was “naughty”. I recall that my cousin wasn’t allowed to watch it because of how racy it was considered at the time. Anyway, this description of Mr. Roper is exactly how I see the character of Mr. Roper. Compare Jack’s situation with that of Larry. Stanley didn’t care about Larry having a constant parade of different women coming back do his apartment because Mr. Roper didn’t know those women. Roper did have a fatherly type connection with Janet and Chrissy. He was written as that typical “father” sitcom figure of the era that has an awkward and dysfunctional relationship with his “daughters”.
Also Terri > Cindy > Chrissy
I am almost certain that Chrissy (Suzanne Somers) was the original cast member, and she apparently got into a power struggle with the network, holding out for more $$$ as she had become the breakout star (or is it bustout star) of Three’s Company and decided to leverage for a better contract.
The network didn’t agree, and so that’s why she was let go and the other characters were introduced.
(I don’t remember a Cindy, but the actress who played Terri was a very thin blonde who looked like hoodoo action at the ready)
PrimateDevil gave an order of preference, not appearance. 
Terry was played by Priscella Barnes. Who played Cindy?
Jenilee Harrison. Her full name was Christmas Snow, and she was Chrissy’s cousin.
That was great, especially the Dutch(?) subtitles. “Kyle is homo” indeed.
Actually, both if I really think about it. I think Terri was a more interesting character as much as you could write one for this type of show during that time period. It’s easy to write a character like Chrissy as the dumb bimbo who says all the stupid punchlines and misunderstands all sorts of things. Cindy was just a Chrissy clone but was a bit less shallow. Terri was a smart woman who was also sexy. That combination is what makes me appreciate her more. That a woman can be really attractive and also pretty darn smart was something that the show needed at that point.
BTW, I know that the spinoff was based on the original British spinoff but I would have rather seen it end differently. It would have been nice to see Jack and Janet finally get together since they were the original cast members.
Chrissy is the one whose full name was “Christmas Snow,” not Cindy.
There was a TV docudrama about the making of Three’s Company back in (checking imdb- 2003). The Suzanne Somers diva scandals and firing were much of the drama; Ritter went many years without speaking to her and Dewitt still hasn’t last I read (unless they ran into each other at the funeral of Ritter or one of the landlords). The most jawdropping revelation was that in spite of the bad blood when Somers and her husband (who was her manager/agent/etc.) heard the producers were wanting to do the Three’s a Crowd spinoff they had the clueless optimism to meet with execs and propose that Jack’s love interest be Chrissy, who would return to the show, fall in love with Jack and move in with him as his girlfriend. They were quickly shown the door; at the time not only was ABC still major league pissed at Somers but they were suing her to stop her from using the Chrissy character in her Vegas act.
Somers did reunite with Norman Fell and they did a Chrissy/Roper sketch when she guest hosted some late night talk show (possibly the Chevy Chase show- can’t remember, but it was one that didn’t last long). That’s when Norman Fell told the story of how/why he and Audra Lindley got written out of the show. Their spinoff The Ropers wasn’t very good but it actually got excellent ratings until the network began moving it around.
TV Land actually aired at least the pilot of The Ropers a while back. It was pretty damn awful.
Even with Jeffrey Tambor it never was very good. The Ropers were “supporting characters” from way back and nobody ever should have thought to make them the stars of a show. Though that said, apparently the Britcom it was based onwas at least a moderate hit.
And Fell basically dancing with his plunger in the opening titles…
(shudder)…the horror…
-Joe
Strangely catchy theme musicthough (if very late 70s/early 80s). Per their contracts and as with Three’s Company there were two versions of the opening credits- one with Fell receiving first billing and the other with Lindley- and they alternated.
As I’ve been watching the episodes in sequence, I can now properly debunk this. It didn’t take the writers long after Larry’s introduction before the implication of a homosexual relationship between him and Jack was intimated to comic effect: in what was just his third appearance on Three’s Company (Season 2, Episode 21: “Will the Real Jack Tripper…”), Larry himself implies that he is Jack’s lover in an attempt to get Jack out of an ill-conceived engagement with his girlfriend.
I think you’re confusing the American and English attitudes towards homosexuality. In England at the time this was the view of pretty much everybody. That might seem odd to an American, but it makes prefect sense when you realize that religion has never played any real role in English life, and attitudes towards sexuality stemmed from manners and social appearance rather than any concern about morality
The English attitude to homosexuality has always been primarily one of ridicule rather than outrage. As others have noted, prior to the release of “Man About the House” English sitcoms already had a complete stable of homosexual characters. While characters on “It Ain’t Half Hot Mum” or “Are You Being served” may have been “only” implied as being gay, that was only due to the nature of the show. The humour derived from constant innuendo, nothing was ever stated. Nobody thought that those characters were anything but openly gay.
There was also an explicitly and openly gay character in the prison comedy “Porridge”. No innuendo in that case: he was queer, he had a long-term male lover outside of prison who was constantly worried about him being unfaithful on the inside, played for humour against the other characters worrying about their wives outside being unfaithful.
On Australian TV at this time, the national Pop Music show was hosted by an openly gay man, everybody knew he was gay as a tree full of monkeys and nobody cared. As far as I know not a single child in Australia was prevented from watching the hugely popular show because the host was gay. There was a very popular soap opera running at the time that featured two openly homosexual characters living together in an apartment.
The reason I mention all this stuff is to highlight the huge difference in English and American attitudes towards homosexuality in the 70s. In England and “The Colonies” homosexuals were basically viewed as having an unfortunate and somewhat humourous affliction. To the majority of people the reaction was much the same as they had to the thought of Koreans eating dog: unnatural and disgusting, but to the extent that morality even entered into it, the attitude was very much “none of my business” with a large amount of giggling at the freaks.
So yeah, from an English perspective George’s attitude was perfectly normal, and basically the majority opinion. People were against straight people “living in sin”, but homosexuals were seen as a group apart.
It’s kind of hard to draw a comparison to American attitudes because the two cultures are very different in this regard. The English tradition isn’t one of strong public religiosity. People were more concerned with appearances, ethics and social cohesion than morality. Nobody much cared what anybody did, so long as they did it in private. Straight couples living in sin was much more socially unacceptable because it wasn’t being hidden. Basically it came down to not flaunting socially unacceptable behaviour. A man was gay, he went off to some quite place and did gay things and people didn’t have to think about it. What went on behind closed doors simply wasn’t anybody else’s business. The only thing that society cared about was what they could see: if you practiced unacceptable acts, you didn’t go around “rubbing it our faces”.
A heterosexual couple living in sin was wrong, not because of morality but because it was flaunting the breaking of social conventions. Everybody would see them living together and be forced to know what they were doing. In English society that was the problem: that they were seen to be doing it, not that they were doing it. At this time lots of people were having premarital sex, they always had been, the issue wasn’t what they were doing, the issue was flaunting it.
And that was George’s attitude and that of the vast majority of people at the time. A heterosexual couple living together was outrageous because it was so blatant. Homosexuality was perfectly acceptable because it was all done behind closed doors.
And of course in the English version, Robin’s homosexuality is basically never mentioned again after the first episode. It’s a premise for the show but it never really plays any more role after that beyond a couple of single lines. It’s certainly never a plot point. And that is again in perfect keeping with the attitudes of the day.
Blake, thanks for the very informative and insightful post. It certainly explains the plausibility of the premise of Man About the House, but only makes that of Three’s Company seem even more bizarre. I guess the American producers conveniently ignored the differing social attitudes towards homosexuality in hopes that the audience would as well. Fortunately the show was consistently funny enough that suspending one’s disbelief in Roper’s unlikely attitude wasn’t very hard.