# Roseanne (2018 revival) Season Thread *spoilers*



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Season Ten of Roseanne on ABC. 

I thought it was a good return. "I dreamed you died, Dan". Same old jokes, updated for 2018. And somehow they're still funny.

"I'm not gay!"


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

So, if I understand correctly.... Although most people interpreted the last episode of the original show as suggesting the whole of the show was the book that Roseanne was writing, they're now suggesting that only the latter seasons of the show were the book? *shrug* Ok, whatever.

I'm not sure about this new run. So far, there's a lack of energy to it. The jokes don't seem to "pop" like they once did. In particular, Roseanne and John Goodman just seem... tired... as they're delivering their lines.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

OK, I'm glad it's back. Having said that:

1. Turn down the laugh-track.

2. The actors need to stop trying so hard. The principal cast from before has the chops--they don't have to prove it. Take where you are and dial it back 20%. (I also think that the performances can be rounded out some, the acting edges still are a bit rough--I think that this will come with time, and/or additional rehearsal.)

3. The writing, IMHO, is a level below the original series. Hopefully, that will round out with time as well. Right now, some of it lands and is great--and some of it plops down. 

4. The characterizations, my biggest concern, as this was the soul of the original: Roseanne and Dan never were stupid or ignorant--they had their views, which had a basis, and they sometimes learned and/or evolved, along a path. In the reboot, however, it at times feels as if the characters were sent to "sitcom school" and given an aspect of the stereotypical sitcom views as to topics. I mean, would Dan (or Roseanne) really not know what potpourri is and eat it? Likewise, the storyline as to surrogacy--would Roseanne really have been so black-and-white on it in the original? And does Jackie need to be made into such a broad character? Granted, she could be broad in the original, but her humanity also would come through.

Drop this stereotypical aspect and return to the full internal soul of the characters--this is why we enjoyed them so much, as real people. We don't need or want "Mork and Mindy" here. 

I remain optimistic--with time.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Mikeguy said:


> OK, I'm glad it's back. Having said that:
> 
> 1. Turn down the laugh-track.


As they announced at the beginning of the episodes, "Roseanne is filmed before a live studio audience."

And maybe I'm biased, but I actually thought the audience was actually *too* muted, like they were a little bored as well.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

LoadStar said:


> So, if I understand correctly.... Although most people interpreted the last episode of the original show as suggesting the whole of the show was the book that Roseanne was writing, they're now suggesting that only the latter seasons of the show were the book? *shrug* Ok, whatever.
> 
> I'm not sure about this new run. So far, there's a lack of energy to it. The jokes don't seem to "pop" like they once did. In particular, Roseanne and John Goodman just seem... tired... as they're delivering their lines.


Coincidentally, my local ABC affiliate, which has been broadcasting the "Roseanne" reruns, had the last and first episodes on tonight, immediately before the reboot. An interesting contrast--essentially, 3 different generations of the show.

The final episode, as I understood it, "clarified" (lol) that the entirety of the series, minus the final year, occurred as we saw; it was then that Dan died and the final year (with the silly lottery-win angle) minus the conclusion of the series (the last 10 minutes or so) were the figment of Rosanne's mind as she wrote her book about the family, as a way to deal with her grief.

With the reboot, "Roseanne" did what it tends to do (think of the Becky's): it simply wrote that final year and angle out of existence with a line of comedy and jokes at the reboot's opening.

Agreed as to the tiredness factor--I felt it as well. It almost felt like Roseanne and John needed to be sent on a week's vacation and then start the reboot. I know that we've all gotten older, but I also think that those 2 are more talented than we saw--perhaps greater directorial handling could assist.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

LoadStar said:


> As they announced at the beginning of the episodes, "Roseanne is filmed before a live studio audience."
> 
> And maybe I'm biased, but I actually thought the audience was actually *too* muted, like they were a little bored as well.


Really, that was a live audience? Quit tweaking the mikes, then, or quit juicing the audience up--it really felt/sounded like a laugh-track to me! 

Maybe we should have watched in the same room--between the 2 of us, the audience would have "averaged-out" . . . .


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Mikeguy said:


> Really, that was a live audience? Quit tweaking the mikes, then, or quit juicing the audience up--it really felt/sounded like a laugh-track to me!


----------



## VegasVic (Nov 22, 2002)

I try not to overthink TV shows, especially comedies. I laughed some. There were some good one liners. I'll keep watching.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> As they announced at the beginning of the episodes, "Roseanne is filmed before a live studio audience."


Filmed before a live studio audience doesn't mean a laugh track wasn't used.

But has anything ever been filmed before a dead studio audience?


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

Did they mention the chairlift on the stairs that magically appeared in episode 2? Other than Jackie mentioning Roseanne's bad knee in episode 1?

Was wondering how they were going to handle Jerry on this show, since he was just an infant on the original run. Honestly I forgot about him till I saw him on a rerun a few weeks ago.Also Jackies son Andy? both would be in their mid 20's.

Lecy (Becky) was always my least favorite character on this show, that hasn't changed.

Darlene "I'm not gay" had me cracking up.


----------



## Family (Jul 23, 2001)

Many good on point comments.

Perhaps tweaking will work, but I saw the show as not fixable. Roseanne, Dan, and Jackie might have worked middle aged, but now they seem as others have said; tired, over the top, and really not that funny. And the rest of the cast added nothing.

Season pass canceled.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Not great. 

As for the potpourri. Dan may not know what it is. Roseanne could have been tweaking him with the milk comment.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I thought it was wonderful and I was really happy they aired 2 episodes back to back to kick it off.

Towards the end of the hour I thought OMG this could just go on all night and I would be content to just keep watching.

I thought the first episode - JUST like Will & Grace - they were finding their footing, but for me - most definitely still had it.

I was DE-lighted.


----------



## DougF (Mar 18, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> As they announced at the beginning of the episodes, "Roseanne is filmed before a live studio audience."...


The announcement actually said "Roseanne is *taped* before a live studio audience". Not trying to correct you, but it jumped out at me when I heard it. I assumed it's being shot digitally and would have expected to hear something like "recorded".


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

I enjoyed it. Made me laugh, lots of great lines. Exactly what I want from my sitcoms.


----------



## markymark_ctown (Oct 11, 2004)

I liked it. I laughed. I cried.

No, I didn't cry but I did laugh quite a bit. Especially with Roseanne and Jackie's Trump/Hillary barbs.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

I thought it was good enough to keep watching. Roseanne and John Goodman were on Howard Stern's show and they said all shows this season have been completed. So any suggestions for changes are already too late.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

I thought it was pretty funny, but I never watched the show during its original run, so I had nothing to compare it to.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

TonyD79 said:


> Not great.
> 
> As for the potpourri. Dan may not know what it is. Roseanne could have been tweaking him with the milk comment.


No, Dan wasn't that stupid. He may have joked about eating it, but he wouldn't have actually done it.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

I thought it got a little better in the 2nd half hour. At the beginning, they were trying the same dynamic between Becky and Darlene as when they were teenagers. That doesn’t work when they’re both almost middle-aged women. 

It still doesn’t feel natural yet. Like they’re just saying their lines instead of acting them. Especially 
Laurie Metcalf. 

I didn’t realize Sarah Chalke was so tall. 

There’s only 9 eps left. I’ll probably watch them.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

RGM1138 said:


> There's only 9 eps left. I'll probably watch them.


Only 9 total.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

realityboy said:


> Only 9 total.


In other words, only 7 more episodes, assuming that they consider what aired on Tuesday to be two episodes.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

I'm going to stay with it, for now anyway. I do agree that it did seem like the older actors were a bit tired and uninspired. I love the casting of the girl from Shameless as Darlene's daughter. I love the son. He's cute and sweet - so totally not like the rest of his family and will probably teach the others a few things.

Would like to see more of DJ and what all is going on with him. 

The Becky/Becky idea is ok but the whole surrogate thing is a bit odd for me. Sure, Becky is 43 (or something like that) and pretending to be 33 seems undoable. But I do like the idea of having both actresses in the show. I really like Sarah Chalke a lot. Lecy looked great at first and kind of seemed different from the Becky character, but she seemed to flow into it after a while.

I'm hoping to see Roseanne and John relax back into the characters better. Sara Gilbert had some good bits, not all comedic, that were heartfelt.


----------



## BradJW (Jun 9, 2008)

Much better than the previews and much better than I expected it to be. I only saw the first episode so far, but I liked what I saw. I'm in.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

I think Sara Gilbert saved the show. I know John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf are both fantastic actors, but they didn’t really seem to be that into it. Roseanne was never a great actress. She’s only as good as the written material. The second episode was better so maybe they’ll find their footing again.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> Did they mention the chairlift on the stairs that magically appeared in episode 2? Other than Jackie mentioning Roseanne's bad knee in episode 1?


The second episode was actually epsiode #3 - next week's episode is #2, and it involves Dan getting Roseanne the chair.

Strange how Dan's death being "all a dream" is sparking some complaints, but Will and Grace both having kids that end up marrying each other being a dream (Karen's) as well is considered the best thing that the _Will & Grace_ reboot could have done.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

sharkster said:


> Would like to see more of DJ and what all is going on with him.


Yeah, I noticed that he basically had what amounted to a walk-on cameo role in the first episode, and unless I blacked out, wasn't in the second at all.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

realityboy said:


> Only 9 total.


Yes, I mistyped.


----------



## nickels (Jan 11, 2010)

I was never a huge fan of the original, but I gave it a chance. All I can say for sure is I laughed out loud a few times. They did seem old and tired, maybe because they ARE old and tired. They tackled social issues and politics, and somehow managed not to offend either side. I will keep watching, as I hope to get more info on what happened with Mark and David. Mark is dead in real life, so that is why they killed him off.


Spoiler: not really a spoiler



David's character will be there to give his side for an episode or two, probably too busy with BBT to be a regular cast member.


----------



## Generic (Dec 27, 2005)

'Roseanne' revival premieres to massive ratings


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

I liked it, mostly.

I thought having both Beckys was hilarious -- that was my favorite part. Yes, the surrogacy plotline is absurd (even at her pretend age of 33 she would be too old for a traditional surrogate; they would review her medical records so the lying about her age would never work; and traditional surrogacy is rare nowadays anyway -- today's surrogates generally don't use their own eggs), but I thought it was very successful in bringing the Beckys together and led to some hilarious lines.

I liked the overall structure with introducing Darlene's kids to get some of the flavor of the original series. liked mini-Darlene a lot.

I'm a little anxious about the non-gender-conforming character. I appreciate tackling a sensitive subject and I liked where they ended up in terms of family acceptance, but I also thought some of the jokes in the early part of the episode were borderline offensive and they made me cringe. I hope they are able to keep away from that now that they've established the character and his family support.

The political feud plot has gotten the most press, but it didn't work for me at all. Jackie was just way too much of a caricature and too over the top.


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

Loved how Grandma Rose and Grandpa Dan stood up for the grandson who likes to wear "brightly colored clothes" - the last joke by Dan-"He's gotta wear underwear" - I was drinking some lemonade and almost did a spit take!

The Beckys are funny-"We could be the same person!"  "It's like looking at myself before I put on my makeup!"

Agree, Mini-Darlene is PERFECTLY cast. She has the same facial expressions-it's almost eerie.

I think that Roseanne and Jackie were trying a little too hard in their "fight" but they quickly settled in. Laurie Metcalf elevates anything she is in. "As one of Langford's leading life coaches..."


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Regina said:


> Loved how Grandma Rose and Grandpa Dan stood up for the grandson who likes to wear "brightly colored clothes" - the last joke by Dan-"He's gotta wear underwear" - I was drinking some lemonade and almost did a spit take!
> 
> The Beckys are funny-"We could be the same person!" *"It's like looking at myself before I put on my makeup!"*
> 
> ...


I had forgotten about that one Sarah Chalke line. That was golden.

I also did appreciate how Roseanne and Dan were open and kind about their grandson. I'm not even a kid person and I like him already.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> As for the potpourri. Dan may not know what it is. Roseanne could have been tweaking him with the milk comment.


The show has always worked better when one interprets comments like the potpourri lines as banter between a married couple.

I didn't see him spitting any out...


markymark_ctown said:


> I liked it. I laughed. I cried.
> 
> No, I didn't cry but I did laugh quite a bit. Especially with Roseanne and Jackie's Trump/Hillary barbs.


I understand _why_ they did it in the first episode, but I was hoping they'd give the bickering a rest at some point. Looks like they did.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

I enjoyed the two episodes last night and got some good laughs. Since it's only seven more episodes, and only a half hour show, I will definitely watch the entire season.


----------



## Donbadabon (Mar 5, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> As they announced at the beginning of the episodes, "Roseanne is filmed before a live studio audience."


I'm guessing that had to be Whitney Cummings doing. She is an executive producer on the show, and I remember an issue with her own show, Whitney, where she added that disclaimer when people complained about the laugh track.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

The "live studio audience" disclaimer isn't really new. IIRC Happy Days used to use that at the open.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Generic said:


> 'Roseanne' revival premieres to massive ratings


Wow that is pretty huge in this day and age. I suspect if that keeps up Season 2 will be announced momentarily...
I am trying to remember what night Roseanne aired on the first time around.
I originally thought Tuesday at 8 was not a good slot for the show.



Ruth said:


> I'm a little anxious about the non-gender-conforming character. I appreciate tackling a sensitive subject and I liked where they ended up in terms of family acceptance, but I also thought some of the jokes in the early part of the episode were borderline offensive and they made me cringe.


I didn't find any of it offensive.


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

Cainebj said:


> I am trying to remember what night Roseanne aired on the first time around.
> I originally thought Tuesday at 8 was not a good slot for the show.


Except for Season 7, when it was on Wednesdays, it was always a Tuesday night show: Roseanne - Wikipedia

9:00 for the first 7 seasons, then 8:00 for the next two (now three).


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

RGM1138 said:


> No, Dan wasn't that stupid. He may have joked about eating it, but he wouldn't have actually done it.


I guess I disagree that you have to be stupid to not know what potpourri is.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

TonyD79 said:


> I guess I disagree that you have to be stupid to not know what potpourri is.


Well, even uninformed. He's not a country bumpkin. It just seemed so out of character for him to do that.

Eating potpourri is something Joey Tribbiani would do. In fact, I think he did in one episode.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Ruth said:


> I'm a little anxious about the non-gender-conforming character. I appreciate tackling a sensitive subject and I liked where they ended up in terms of family acceptance, but I also thought some of the jokes in the early part of the episode were borderline offensive and they made me cringe. I hope they are able to keep away from that now that they've established the character and his family support.





Cainebj said:


> I didn't find any of it offensive.


I agree that some of the initial comments were very tone deaf for those with more than a passing association on the issue, it was right up on cringe-worthy but they managed to save it later on.
He's going to be a tough character to write for and around for writers that do not understand the issue.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I think they did a brilliant job of presenting both sides of the election and like-wise, I think they are doing the same thing with the non-gender-conforming issue. Showing that tone-deaf people are tone-deaf to then have them become enlightened is exactly what worked for me. This is Archie Bunker 101.

BTW - I think they were joking about the potpourri - I didn't believe either of them don't know what it is.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Cainebj said:


> I think they did a brilliant job of presenting both sides of the election . . . .





Spoiler: The following is humor, not political--if that might offend you, please pass on-- ;)



Apparently, Pres. Trump called Roseanne Barr to congratulate her on the show. Does that mean that Hillary Clinton will be calling Laurie Metcalf to congratulate her similarly?




​


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Never watched the original when first aired. Viewed a few (incl last 2 ep) on TvLand before the new season.
Meh, it was ok. Looked to me like "Rosanne" is just trying to update what they did in the 90's to current issues but with the same humor.

Edit: I recall hearing/reading that in the old season that Rosanne won the Lottery, so why are they still in the old house (that "Rosanne" said they almost lost in the financial crisis — What do they have, a 50 year mortgage? )


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Tony_T said:


> Never watched the original when first aired. Viewed a few (incl last 2 ep) on TvLand before the new season.
> Meh, it was ok. Looked to me like "Rosanne" is just trying to update what they did in the 90's to current issues but with the same humor.
> 
> Edit: I recall hearing/reading that in the old season that Rosanne won the Lottery, so why are they still in the old house (that "Rosanne" said they almost lost in the financial crisis - What do they have, a 50 year mortgage? )


As explained in the last 10 minutes of the original series, that lottery win (the last season) was in Roseanne's imagination, as she was grieving from the death of Dan and was writing a book about their lives . . . . (Of course, that doesn't mesh with Dan now being alive . . . . Alternate realities.  )


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

A lot in that last 10min, so I missed that. Thanks.
BTW, I liked how they ended the old season (first time I saw it was a few days ago)


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Tony_T said:


> A lot in that last 10min, so I missed that. Thanks.
> BTW, I liked how they ended the old season (first time I saw it was a few days ago)


I just re-watched the last episode of the original series a few days ago (a local station was running the series)--I found it incredibly touching, and that Roseanne Barr did a commendable job with it.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Mikeguy said:


> As explained in the last 10 minutes of the original series, that lottery win (the last season) was in Roseanne's imagination, as she was grieving from the death of Dan and was writing a book about their lives . . . . (Of course, that doesn't mesh with Dan now being alive . . . . Alternate realities.  )


Perhaps Roseanne is into 'alternative facts'.  (groan)


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Mikeguy said:


> (Of course, that doesn't mesh with Dan now being alive . . . . Alternate realities.  )


Thats why the reboot started with Roseanne nudging Dan awake saying "I thought you were dead!" and Dan replying "Why does everyone always assume I'm dead?!?"

The same way they nudge-nudge the whole thing about the two Beckys. They did then, they do now. It's better and more in keeping with the spirit of the show than pulling a Darren Stevens and hoping no one notices.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

pdhenry said:


> Thats why the reboot started with Roseanne nudging Dan awake saying "I thought you were dead!" and Dan replying "Why does everyone always assume I'm dead?!?"
> 
> The same way they nudge-nudge the whole thing about the two Beckys. They did then, they do now. It's better and more in keeping with the spirit of the show than pulling a Darren Stevens and hoping no one notices.


Absolutely. An in joke, with sophisticated (well . . .) modern audiences.

I had forgotten about it, but after Laurie Metcalf won her first Emmy for the show (she won x3), there was a credits scene at the end of the show zooming in on her polishing her Emmy statuette on the set seemingly as her character Jackie, with Roseanne and John Goodman (who also had been up for Emmy awards that year but did not win) then attacking her to snatch the award away.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

I just read that this did so well Fox wants to reboot Last Man Standing already.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Was going to get around to watching this, but then saw the bizarre, baffling, disturbing stuff Roseanne has done recently - think I’ll pass...


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Had to google as this is the first I heard.
2009, right? Not that time matters, just surprised I never heard about it.
Snopes (confirms it) has a good write-up.


----------



## BradJW (Jun 9, 2008)

My favorite part of the second episode was the teacher. Immediately recognized her as the teacher in S01E01, when Roseanne had to see Darlene's teacher because Darlene was barking in class. Great cameo!


----------



## redrouteone (Jun 16, 2001)

I tried to watch it tonight. I turned it off halfway through the first episode. I really didn’t enjoy the political stuff.


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

I liked it enough to watch the rest. Sure it threw a lot out there for the first episode and it almost seemed like current events overload, but the show has enough good will to watch the other 7.

I do think they missed an opportunity to have two Becky daughters by making the original a lesbian and the replacement (better one) her girlfriend/fiance.



redrouteone said:


> I tried to watch it tonight. I turned it off halfway through the first episode. I really didn't enjoy the political stuff.


The second episode seemed less political if that matters



Mike Lang said:


> I just read that this did so well Fox wants to reboot Last Man Standing already.


Good news, I liked that show...not sure about a reboot, I guess restart?


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

redrouteone said:


> I tried to watch it tonight. I turned it off halfway through the first episode. I really didn't enjoy the political stuff.


Yeah, you have to be able to make it past that (I was thinking they'd better tone it down soon). I think they just needed to establish the friction between Roseanne and her sister so they could kiss and make up. Episode 2 was (almost?) politics-free.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

'Roseanne' Reboot Sprang From ABC's Heartland Strategy After Trump's Victory
_"Mr. Werner pointed out that "Roseanne" will deal with the opioid epidemic and immigration in its seven remaining episodes, adding that the president does not come up much as the show goes on."_


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Mikeguy said:


> As explained in the last 10 minutes of the original series, that lottery win (the last season) was in Roseanne's imagination, as she was grieving from the death of Dan and was writing a book about their lives . . . . (Of course, that doesn't mesh with Dan now being alive . . . . Alternate realities.  )


They reference that in the first episode. Dan and Roseanne are out in the garage. Dan finds Roseanne's manuscript. He comments "This would have sold like hotcakes if you hadn't killed off the most interesting character," suggesting that the end of the original series finale, where Dan's death is supposedly revealed, is also a part of that book that she was writing, along with the rest of that season.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

LoadStar said:


> They reference that in the first episode. Dan and Roseanne are out in the garage. Dan finds Roseanne's manuscript. He comments "This would have sold like hotcakes if you hadn't killed off the most interesting character," suggesting that the end of the original series finale, where Dan's death is supposedly revealed, is also a part of that book that she was writing, along with the rest of that season.


Excellent point and catch!


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Mike Lang said:


> I just read that this did so well Fox wants to reboot Last Man Standing already.


That'll never happen...it would be akin to ABC admitting why it canceled the show in the first place (politics). Those reports are rumors, and Fox is the rumor monger...


----------



## WO312 (Jan 24, 2003)

Bierboy said:


> That'll never happen...it would be akin to ABC admitting why it canceled the show in the first place (politics). Those reports are rumors, and Fox is the rumor monger...


Huh?? Don't understand what you are trying to say. ABC cancelled it. Fox picks it up thinking it will be popular and make money for them. Makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

WO312 said:


> Huh?? Don't understand what you are trying to say. ABC cancelled it. Fox picks it up thinking it will be popular and make money for them. Makes perfect sense to me.


The only rumbles I've read are rumors, and I misread the original post (thinking it referred to ABC, not Fox). I've just now seen some reports of Fox, but seems like of lot of that is fueled by Twitter...don't get me wrong; I'd LOVE to see LMS back on the air. But I'm guessing most of the actors are tied up now. And Allen seems busy with his one-man shows.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

WO312 said:


> Huh?? Don't understand what you are trying to say. ABC cancelled it. Fox picks it up thinking it will be popular and make money for them. Makes perfect sense to me.


Fox could've picked it up when ABC cancelled it if they would've wanted it. 20th Century Fox was the production company. It's ratings didn't justify the cost, and I doubt they would be better now. It only comes back if Tim Allen takes a pay cut.

I'd imagine ABC would be far more interested in a nostalgia fueled reboot of Home Improvement.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

Last Man Standing' Might Come Back to TV Because 'Roseanne' Was So Successful


----------



## Frylock (Feb 13, 2002)

Last Man Standing didn't come back because Tim Allen was set to renegotiate his contract, and the cost of the show was going to skyrocket. When it was a cheap show on friday night, it made sense. An expensive show didn't make a whole lot of sense.

Rebooting it because Roseanne did well makes even less sense. I think there were a lot of people who turned in just to see what the show would be like, or do, or how they all looked. Not sure that they will keep the same ratings for the whole 9 episodes. I think many people got their fill, and will move on.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Fox Productions would like for someone to pick up Last Man Standing because they'd get paid for making it, but considering that it was a marginal ratings producer, I'm dubious that a broadcaster would pick it up.

Maybe a streaming outlet would be interested but I think that Allen would have to take a hefty pay cut (from what he was likely to ask for to continue) for that to happen.


----------



## nrnoble (Aug 25, 2004)

I loved the original Rosanne. The writing was both funny and realistic.

It will be interesting to see how they handle the Trump (Rosanne) vs anti-Trump (Jackie) family feud.

Also, for those who have Amazon Prime, you can watch the original series for free. In the first episode only, DJ was played by a different actor and replaced by Michael Fishman in episode 2. Somewhere I read the the orginal boy did not get along well with Sara Gilbert, so the producers made a change.

Avoid TV Land version if possible, they hack the hell out of shows and time compress them horribly.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Frylock said:


> Last Man Standing didn't come back because Tim Allen was set to renegotiate his contract, and the cost of the show was going to skyrocket. When it was a cheap show on friday night, it made sense. An expensive show didn't make a whole lot of sense.


Specifically, it's said that if renewed, with the way the shows finances were structured, ABC would have been on the hook for the *full* production cost. Since the show wasn't produced by ABC Studios, Disney/ABC wouldn't have seen any backend return on investment - that is, no syndication or home video/streaming revenue.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

Second (eleventh?) season announced.

'Roseanne' Revival Renewed at ABC


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

realityboy said:


> Fox could've picked it up when ABC cancelled it if they would've wanted it.


CMT also strongly considered renewing the show, but eventually backed off because the finances just wouldn't have worked out.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I find it interesting so many people are talking about being turned off by the "politics".
I didn't find it that political at all.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

And ABC has officially renewed Roseanne for another season.


----------



## VegasVic (Nov 22, 2002)

I'm hoping the political stuff was a one off, I see/hear enough of that every day, I don't particularly want it in a sitcom. They both explained why they voted the way they voted, now move on


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

I watched it earlier today. I thought it was OK. I'll keep watching it for a bit.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

realityboy said:


> And ABC has officially renewed Roseanne for another season.


That's amazingly fast. I'm guessing ABC hopes/assumes that the ratings will stay high.

I doubt they can maintain the stratospheric levels of the premiere, but they should do okay.


----------



## nrnoble (Aug 25, 2004)

Cainebj said:


> I find it interesting so many people are talking about being turned off by the "politics".
> I didn't find it that political at all.





VegasVic said:


> I'm hoping the political stuff was a one off, I see/hear enough of that every day, I don't particularly want it in a sitcom. They both explained why they voted the way they voted, now move on


I think the characters are using the differences in political views as "excuses" to attack each's other's faults and weakness. Its not the political views that actually are pissed off about in the context of their relationships with each other.

The show's intent maybe doing an updated version of All in the Family, where they work through their problems in a realistic way despite having very different perspectives.


----------



## VegasVic (Nov 22, 2002)

Did they say how many episodes next season? I'm assuming another short run of 10 or less.


----------



## DVR_Dave (Apr 19, 2017)

VegasVic said:


> Did they say how many episodes next season? I'm assuming another short run of 10 or less.


From the link that _tlc_ posted: "There was no immediate word whether the network plans to have it ready for fall, but sources say the order has been increased from nine episodes to 13."


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

RGM1138 said:


> That's amazingly fast. I'm guessing ABC hopes/assumes that the ratings will stay high.
> 
> I doubt they can maintain the stratospheric levels of the premiere, but they should do okay.


The cast was already locked in. They were just waiting for ABC.


----------



## cannonz (Oct 23, 2011)

Thankfully no sad pathetic excuse for a human being Tom Arnold involvement.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

cannonz said:


> Thankfully no sad pathetic excuse for a human being Tom Arnold involvement.


 Did I miss something?


----------



## nrnoble (Aug 25, 2004)

cannonz said:


> Thankfully no sad pathetic excuse for a human being Tom Arnold involvement.


He was out of place on the show, his character didn't fit at all.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

nrnoble said:


> He was out of place on the show, his character didn't fit at all.


I dunno. To me, he seemed to fit in with the other guys that Dan played poker with.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

LoadStar said:


> Did I miss something?


Oh, yeah. A whole lot of history and drama surrounding the marriage of Arnold and Barr and his involvement in the show.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Mikeguy said:


> Spoiler: The following is humor, not political--if that might offend you, please pass on-- ;)
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Spoiler



Jackie voted for Jill Stein.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

VegasVic said:


> I'm hoping the political stuff was a one off, I see/hear enough of that every day, I don't particularly want it in a sitcom. They both explained why they voted the way they voted, now move on


_"Mr. Werner pointed out that "Roseanne" will deal with the opioid epidemic and immigration in its seven remaining episodes, adding that the president does not come up much as the show goes on."_


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Will lizard people come up, I wonder? She's tweeted about lizard people, seemingly seriously.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> Will lizard people come up, I wonder? She's tweeted about lizard people, seemingly seriously.


Maybe next year. They've got to fill 13 episodes somehow.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

BrettStah said:


> Will lizard people come up, I wonder? She's tweeted about lizard people, seemingly seriously.


You mean the alien kind we saw in V, (the original)? The hamster eaters?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Was not a fan of the original and not a Rosanne Barr fan so I didn't watch this. Is ABC jumping the gun on the renewal? Do they know that for sure this is going to maintain the ratings or were they a product of the curiosity factor and they will drop after that's over with? That should be interesting.

On Meet the Press they showed how in "Trump" country were where the ratings were the highest. So maybe that's why they think it will have legs.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> Was not a fan of the original and not a Rosanne Barr fan so I didn't watch this. Is ABC jumping the gun on the renewal? Do they know that for sure this is going to maintain the ratings or were they a product of the curiosity factor and they will drop after that's over with? That should be interesting.
> 
> On Meet the Press they showed how in "Trump" country were where the ratings were the highest. So maybe that's why they think it will have legs.


It's just a funny sitcom. Too many people are overthinking it. Sure it did better in certain demos, all sitcoms have their fans and strengths and weaknesses. But the original Roseanne was simply funny at a time when people didn't analyze "how to feel" about it. And I think the revival is the same.

It's funny (sad?) how a comedy is now over-analyzed for political leanings, instead of whether it's enjoyable to watch. Now if the show becomes a bully pulpit for politics (regardless of which color), and that makes it less enjoyable, then I stop watching. But I can handle well-written politics in a series if it's fun to watch, and doesn't preach.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

astrohip said:


> It's just a funny sitcom. Too many people are overthinking it. Sure it did better in certain demos, all sitcoms have their fans and strengths and weaknesses. But the original Roseanne was simply funny at a time when people didn't analyze "how to feel" about it. And I think the revival is the same.
> 
> It's funny (sad?) how a comedy is now over-analyzed for political leanings, instead of whether it's enjoyable to watch. Now if the show becomes a bully pulpit for politics (regardless of which color), and that makes it less enjoyable, then I stop watching. But I can handle well-written politics in a series if it's fun to watch, and doesn't preach.


It's sad in a way, but it's nothing new. All In the Family, M*A*S*H and others in the 1970s and 80s were politicized. It's just much more open than it was then, because of the Internet. As for funny, that's subjective and I'll leave it at that.


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> It's sad in a way, but it's nothing new. All In the Family, M*A*S*H and others in the 1970s and 80s were politicized.


I grew up watching MASH. My dad was that. MSGT, Army, field hospital. I cried a lot watching it. Mom too.


> It's just much more open than it was then, because of the Internet. As for funny, that's subjective and I'll leave it at that.


LOL! What't the name for that? Passive aggressive?


----------



## nickels (Jan 11, 2010)

Well, real life Roseanne is certainly making it hard for me to continue watching the show. I despise her beliefs and have tried to put them aside to enjoy the show. If she continues to post insane crackpot theories it is going to make me tune out for sure.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

justen_m said:


> LOL! What't the name for that? Passive aggressive?


Huh?


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

nickels said:


> Well, real life Roseanne is certainly making it hard for me to continue watching the show. I despise her beliefs and have tried to put them aside to enjoy the show. If she continues to post insane crackpot theories it is going to make me tune out for sure.


Sounds like something a lizard person would say!


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

nickels said:


> Well, real life Roseanne is certainly making it hard for me to continue watching the show. I despise her beliefs and have tried to put them aside to enjoy the show. If she continues to post insane crackpot theories it is going to make me tune out for sure.


Yeah, I don't pay attention to people's political opinions outside of the production they're in, (if I can help it).
If I did, I'd never watch anything.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

I've even been known to eat lunch at a Chick-fil-A now and then.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

pdhenry said:


> I've even been known to eat lunch at a Chick-fil-A now and then.


There ya go. Sometimes, it's just about the chicken.


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

I'm surprised 6.6M DVR viewers within 3 days is an all time record.

'Roseanne' Ratings Climb, Hit 25 Million Viewers With Time-Shifting Record

It will be interesting to see what ratings are like this week.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Haven't read the thread. I watched the first episode so far. It seemed a little bit "turned up to 11", but still, probably the best reunion/continuation I've ever seen.. based on that one episode so far.

(Though at the moment I can't think of others that did continuations.. They usually try to do the reunion movie thing, which usually works badly, even though I'm a sucker and watch all of them.. they have to cram in a side story for every character, and just seem less interesting than if they just do a continuation, like Roseanne did here..)

I do think it's a shame that Clooney didn't participate. With his showing up on 'er' after he left (even if silently), he usually seems like a good sport.


----------



## nickels (Jan 11, 2010)

Roseanne was just on Stern and she told a story that on the original show there was a photo of George Clooney's junk on a backstage fridge at one point. He put Groucho glasses on it and took a polaroid. Someone stole it. Of course, George denies it happened. That photo would be worth a lot of money these days.

Roseanne Barr Says George Clooney Left a Photo of His "Wiener" on Set


----------



## nickels (Jan 11, 2010)

EPISODE THREE SPOILERS AHEAD:

The third episode was funny. When Roseanne held Darlene's Daughter's head under the sink I was in tears. I am still laughing now just thinking about it. They could not have chosen a better actress to play Darlene's daughter. I almost thought she was her real life kid they look so similar. There was nothing political at all from what I can remember. They might as well have not included DJ in this reboot. So far he has had about one line and maybe 30 seconds of screen time. There are almost too many characters for a half hour show in a shortened season.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

I loved the third episode. Roseanne is way better than I remember her, or she's toned down some, and I LOVE John Goodman. He's hilarious.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

3.9 in young adults
15 million total viewers


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> 3.9 in young adults
> 15 million total viewers


Wait 'til DVR viewing is added in...


----------



## markymark_ctown (Oct 11, 2004)

nickels said:


> EPISODE THREE SPOILERS AHEAD:
> 
> The third episode was funny. When Roseanne held Darlene's Daughter's head under the sink I was in tears. I am still laughing now just thinking about it. They could not have chosen a better actress to play Darlene's daughter. I almost thought she was her real life kid they look so similar. There was nothing political at all from what I can remember. They might as well have not included DJ in this reboot. So far he has had about one line and maybe 30 seconds of screen time. There are almost too many characters for a half hour show in a shortened season.


Darlene's daughter is from Shameless.

Her behavior on Shameless is worse than Roseanne


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

nickels said:


> EPISODE THREE SPOILERS AHEAD:
> _snip_
> They might as well have not included DJ in this reboot. So far he has had about one line and maybe 30 seconds of screen time. There are almost too many characters for a half hour show in a shortened season.


So just like DJ from the original series?


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I would be surprised if there is not a DJ episode explaining how he has a child - and I could be making this up - but I think I heard something in one of the first 2 episodes about his wife being in the military and serving overseas?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Cainebj said:


> I would be surprised if there is not a DJ episode explaining how he has a child - and I could be making this up - but I think I heard something in one of the first 2 episodes about his wife being in the military and serving overseas?


Yes. They mentioned she was overseas.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I don't think this has been mentioned yet on the show, but an article I read said:


Spoiler



DJ's wife is Geena, the girl that he was uncomfortable kissing because she was black, in the season 7 episode "White Men Can't Kiss".


I know they mentioned his wife's name in passing in the first episode, but I don't think they've given the rest of the back story yet.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Apparently, there's some backlash about an exchange in the third episode, along the lines of:
Roseanne: "We slept from Wheel to Kimmel." 
Dan: "We missed all the shows about black and Asian families." (i.e. _blackish_ and _Fresh Off the Boat_)
Roseanne: "They're just like us. There, now you're all caught up."


----------



## cannonz (Oct 23, 2011)

Yep, really have to be reaching to be offended by that.


----------



## MarkofT (Jul 27, 2001)

The main whiner is saying that the "They're just like us." is demeaning because they are just token black or Asian shows. He's also upset that they slept though it. Basically a point of view that ignores that it's a joke about getting old.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

I thought that part of it actually was social commentary as to TV, that all the "black" and "Asian" shows were solely those on in that small time period.

In large part, so true.

And part of the commentary (the "They're just like us" comment) noting how TV can reduce everything down to bland stereotypes where we're all the same (actually not the case with "blackish").


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

mattack said:


> Haven't read the thread. I watched the first episode so far. It seemed a little bit "turned up to 11", but still, probably the best reunion/continuation I've ever seen.. based on that one episode so far.
> 
> (Though at the moment I can't think of others that did continuations.. They usually try to do the reunion movie thing, which usually works badly, even though I'm a sucker and watch all of them.. they have to cram in a side story for every character, and just seem less interesting than if they just do a continuation, like Roseanne did here..)


You must not have seen the Will & Grace reboot. They just walked back on the set and started back up where they left off.


----------



## dthmj (Mar 12, 2002)

I was a big fan of the original Rosanne show until it got all weird with the lottery stuff.

But maybe because I'm older now, I just find her screachy and whiney. I remember (and I could be wrong) that in the original, Roseanne was sarcastic, but it was all rooted in love for her family. I get the impression now, she's still sarcastic, but she's just an irritated old woman now.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I watched the first three episodes last night. I remember I had given up on this show and didn't see the last few seasons so I don't have any of the context WRT Dan's death, the book, the lottery, etc. I thought the reboot was OK, and it did have an interesting take on some things.

The thing that I find jarring is that Roseanne Barr is just a really not good actor. I mean, you don't have to be Shakespearean to be in a sitcom, but her delivery is often so stilted she seems like someone who was just yanked onto the set out of a supermarket parking lot. I can't remember if she was always like that; maybe it's just reboot jitters. She has some moments but mostly it's pretty stiff.


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Roseanne originally did stand up comedy, right? It seems like they never get over the joke delivery from that. Seinfeld is the same. They're not too bad because they've been acting so long, but it's like it's still in there. And since there's a live studio audience, you throw in the pause for laughs too.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

MarkofT said:


> The main whiner is saying that the "They're just like us." is demeaning because they are just token black or Asian shows. He's also upset that they slept though it. Basically a point of view that ignores that it's a joke about getting old.


He's a writer on Bob's Burgers.
Wonder if _that_ show had any inappropriate jokes


----------



## MarkofT (Jul 27, 2001)

stellie93 said:


> Roseanne originally did stand up comedy, right? It seems like they never get over the joke delivery from that. Seinfeld is the same. They're not too bad because they've been acting so long, but it's like it's still in there. And since there's a live studio audience, you throw in the pause for laughs too.


I think Roseanne was part of the "audience participation" group of sitcoms. Their main hallmark is that when certain cast members enter the room or toss out a catchphrase, the audience goes nuts for a few seconds and the actors mostly pause the show to wait for the noise to die down.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

dthmj said:


> I was a big fan of the original Rosanne show until it got all weird with the lottery stuff.
> 
> But maybe because I'm older now, I just find her screachy and whiney. I remember (and I could be wrong) that in the original, Roseanne was sarcastic, but it was all rooted in love for her family. I get the impression now, she's still sarcastic, but she's just an irritated old woman now.


No, I think she's always been that way..

Though the wife/mother on "American Housewife" also seems like a modern Roseanne - really sarcastic to her kids and everyone else.. and a lower income family (but not as low income as Roseanne).


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

cannonz said:


> Yep, really have to be reaching to be offended by that.


Agreed...


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Hey, that was Rhea Seehorn!


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

I thought this week's was the best of the new bunch so far.


----------



## nickels (Jan 11, 2010)

The latest episode is what makes a comedy shine - emotion. I genuinely felt bad for Becky. I liked the balance of going from tears of sadness to tears from laughter. Quite the emotional roller-coaster episode.


----------



## cannonz (Oct 23, 2011)

I only watched the original now and then and last few seasons not at all, but didn't Jackie have a baby near the end?


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

cannonz said:


> I only watched the original now and then and last few seasons not at all, but didn't Jackie have a baby near the end?


Yep--and I just was wondering where that little bugger is . . . . Little Andy.



Spoiler: What has happened to Little Jerry and Little Andy?






> The Roseanne revival is set to debut on ABC in March, and there are still a lot of questions about the Conner family that fans want answered. One of the biggest questions will be that of Roseanne and Jackie's youngest children, Jerry and Andy.
> 
> According to a February 20 report by TVLine, Roseanne Barr has confirmed that neither Jerry nor Andy will be part of the Roseanne revival this season. Barr says that the character of her son, Jerry Garcia Conner, will be addressed, and it will be revealed that he is working on a fishing boat in Alaska. However, the character of Jackie's son, Andy, is a different story.
> 
> It seems that Roseanne revival viewers won't get to find out what happened to little Andy, at least not anytime soon. Barr says that Andy's fate won't be addressed in the revival due to the fact that there were just too many stories to tell during the season's nine episodes. However, the actress and creator of the series says that if the show gets picked up for another season, there may be time to dive deeper into other characters as well.


'Roseanne' Revival Spoilers: Barr Dishes On Jackie's Son Andy, 'TVLine' Reports

Really, they can't somehow fit in a reference to the kid?


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I always remembered Alicia Goranson as being a terrible actress as she got older - but I thought she was great in this episode, so good for her. The remembering Glenn Quinn at the end was a nice touch.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Cainebj said:


> I always remembered Alicia Goranson as being a terrible actress as she got older - but *I thought she was great in this episode, so good for her. The remembering Glenn Quinn at the end was a nice touch.*


^ +1.


----------



## VegasVic (Nov 22, 2002)

I knew Quinn had passed away a long time ago but I had forgot about the circumstances. Sad.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Cainebj said:


> I always remembered Alicia Goranson as being a terrible actress as she got older


Part of that, I think, was just that Sarah was just a *better* actress than Lecy was. So, when Lecy came back, after having seen Sarah play the role, it became even more apparent how much better Sarah was.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

I guess I'm a bit different: I liked Lecy throughout, and especially in her later "married" years--many touching performances there (which I thought were the best in the role).


----------



## cannonz (Oct 23, 2011)

Sara Gilbert hasn't been on last couple of Living Biblically, is she off it since this got another season?


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

MarkofT said:


> The main whiner is saying that the "They're just like us." is demeaning because they are just token black or Asian shows. He's also upset that they slept though it. Basically a point of view that ignores that it's a joke about getting old.


NYT 04/13: 'Roseanne': When a Punch Line Feels Like a Gut Punch
_In putting my thoughts to tweet, I was attempting to do a few things: question the creative motivation behind the joke, point out glaring industry double standards and shed some light on the systemic complacency that allows these things to happen._​


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

cannonz said:


> Sara Gilbert hasn't been on last couple of Living Biblically, is she off it since this got another season?


I think they would have taped all of LB before the Roseanne news hit...


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

LoadStar said:


> Part of that, I think, was just that Sarah was just a *better* actress than Lecy was. So, when Lecy came back, after having seen Sarah play the role, it became even more apparent how much better Sarah was.


Sarah Chalke was always my favorite Becky.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

cannonz said:


> Sara Gilbert hasn't been on last couple of Living Biblically, is she off it since this got another season?


I never thought of her as part of that cast; just seemed like she was guest starring on some initial episodes as a favor to executive producer Johnny Galecki to try to get that show jump-started. It's best she distance herself from it anyway because they're just burning off the remaining episodes at this point. It's close to dead.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

I bailed on LB 10 min into ep2
Awful.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

LoadStar said:


> Part of that, I think, was just that Sarah was just a *better* actress than Lecy was. So, when Lecy came back, after having seen Sarah play the role, it became even more apparent how much better Sarah was.


And way hotter, to be honest. Not that hotness makes you a better actor, but damn, it helps me overlook some poor acting.


----------



## nickels (Jan 11, 2010)

Looks like we get the back story for Darlene and David this week!


----------



## nickels (Jan 11, 2010)

I guess it is due to the fact that David is on another show, but I was kind of disappointed that they didn't give it one last try. People change and kids are involved, and it seemed like they gave up when it could have finally worked out. Jackie continues to steal the show with her brief moments of screen time. I was never a huge fan of the original, but this reboot has me cracking up every single week.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

I didn't think that Galecki quite captured the original David. He was not soft enough.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> I didn't think that Galecki quite captured the original David. He was not soft enough.


I thought he did quite well, and in fact, I was struck by how much differently he portrayed David than he portrays Leonard on BBT.


nickels said:


> I guess it is due to the fact that David is on another show, but I was kind of disappointed that they didn't give it one last try. People change and kids are involved, and it seemed like they gave up when it could have finally worked out. Jackie continues to steal the show with her brief moments of screen time. I was never a huge fan of the original, but this reboot has me cracking up every single week.


I didn't get the impression that the door was completely closed. In fact, I thought he took Dan's words to heart - get settled back into Lanford, then he can try and become involved in his kids lives again.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Tony_T said:


> I bailed on LB 10 min into ep2
> Awful.


Living Biblically Cancelled.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Tony_T said:


> Living Biblically Cancelled.


Dang...I actually really enjoyed that show!


----------



## cannonz (Oct 23, 2011)

pmyers said:


> Dang...I actually really enjoyed that show!


 Yeah. it started out slow but got better with each episode, was hoping it would make it.


----------



## cannonz (Oct 23, 2011)

Bierboy said:


> That'll never happen...it would be akin to ABC admitting why it canceled the show in the first place (politics). Those reports are rumors, and Fox is the rumor monger...


 'Last Man Standing' Eyes Resurrection At Fox With Star Tim Allen Set to Return


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

TV Ratings: 'Roseanne' Sheds 23 Percent, Loses Tuesday to 'NCIS'


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

cannonz said:


> 'Last Man Standing' Eyes Resurrection At Fox With Star Tim Allen Set to Return


Really? Fox's excuse for not picky NG it up last year was that they needed to pair it with a three camera sitcom? Since when has that been a scheduling concern for any network?


----------



## Frylock (Feb 13, 2002)

I like how the article compared it coming back to Roseanne, Will & Grace, and Murphy Brown. It has only been off for 1 season! Roseanne and MB have both been off for quite some time, and even Will and Grace has been a while. Not really the same at all... This is more like when Family Guy got cancelled and then brought back.


----------



## cannonz (Oct 23, 2011)

Last Man Standing: Fox Officially Orders Revival of Cancelled Tim Allen Sitcom


----------



## cannonz (Oct 23, 2011)

I just noticed the new show does not show up if you search upcoming eps from old on TV Land etc., search by title there is 2 separate Roseanne results 1 with TV Land, CMT, Paramount etc. the other just new.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

TonyD79 said:


> I didn't think that Galecki quite captured the original David. He was not soft enough.


Too many years playing Leonard.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

cannonz said:


> 'Last Man Standing' Eyes Resurrection At Fox With Star Tim Allen Set to Return


I previously stated I misread...and I'm thrilled.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Bierboy said:


> I previously stated I misread...and I'm thrilled.


I assume they're able to get the whole band back together. I don't think any of the cast had other major commitments.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> I didn't think that Galecki quite captured the original David. He was not soft enough.


Do you act the same as you did 25years ago?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Do you act the same as you did 25years ago?


It's a sitcom. Pandering to nostalgia. All the other characters are the same.


----------



## nickels (Jan 11, 2010)

The last episode was very political - from Islamophobia to hiring illegals. It was amusing to me that the character Roseanne is more likable, rational, and a better person than the real life Roseanne. Hopefully she learns something from own character.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> It's a sitcom. Pandering to nostalgia. All the other characters are the same.


I need some pandering to me every now-and-again.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

nickels said:


> The last episode was very political - from Islamophobia to hiring illegals. It was amusing to me that the character Roseanne is more likable, rational, and a better person than the real life Roseanne. Hopefully she learns something from own character.


She'd probably be more understanding on a one on one basis like her character was in this episode. One thing we know about Roseanne. She won't do something on her show she doesn't approve of.


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

TonyD79 said:


> She'd probably be more understanding on a one on one basis like her character was in this episode. One thing we know about Roseanne. She won't do something on her show she doesn't approve of.


I found the last episode about the Muslim neighbors to be the weakest one by far this season. It was so predicable even down to the racist white girl cashier. But so far this reboot has been very entertaining.


----------



## Frylock (Feb 13, 2002)

With a normal sitcom I'd say it was predictable, but given Roseanne's personal beliefs, I wasn't sure which way it would go...


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

OK, tonight's season finale really got to me. I genuinely found the scene with Roseanne and Dan in the flooded basement, and then Dan alone, frightening. Reflecting the reality under which some people live, one rain flood away from disaster and financial ruin (and following up on the earlier scenes noting inaccessible health care). Towards the end of the scene, I thought that the show might take a turn and Dan have another heart attack. 

For me, the unsensational realism made this an affecting and best show of the season, with best-of-season writing at the level of some of the best in the original series.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I really loved how they brought back many of the original supporting characters without much fanfare for appearances here and there - Crystal ... Sandra Bernhard - I had no idea the guy from Grey's Anatomy was the same actor...

My favorite Roseanne episodes were the over the top Halloween shows and I also loved they threw back to some of that in the final episode.


----------



## VegasVic (Nov 22, 2002)

I believe next season will be in the fall so I would imagine another Halloween episode (I agree those were pretty good).


----------



## stellie93 (Feb 25, 2006)

Roseanne is a good actress and comedian, but John Goodman is a GREAT actor and they play off each other really well. If they had cast someone else as her husband, I doubt that the original show would have gone as well as it did.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

stellie93 said:


> Roseanne is a good actress and comedian, but John Goodman is a GREAT actor and they play off each other really well. If they had cast someone else as her husband, I doubt that the original show would have gone as well as it did.


And Laurie Metcalf earned her (multiple) Emmy awards.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Mikeguy said:


> And Laurie Metcalf earned her (multiple) Emmy awards.


And Tony award, and Oscar nomination.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

And cancelled.

'Roseanne' Canceled at ABC


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Gotta say I'm a little stunned. ABC had to know what they were getting into when they revived her show. It seems surprising that one tweet (that frankly, isn't much worse than stuff she's said in the past) was enough to get ABC to yank the show.

To be clear, I'm neither endorsing nor excusing her tweets, nor am I saying that ABC did the wrong thing here. I'm just saying it is par for the course with her.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> Gotta say I'm a little stunned. ABC had to know what they were getting into when they revived her show. It seems surprising that one tweet (that frankly, isn't much worse than stuff she's said in the past) was enough to get ABC to yank the show.
> 
> To be clear, I'm neither endorsing nor excusing her tweets - just saying it is par for the course with her.


I'm sure she promised she was different now.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

jsmeeker said:


> And cancelled.
> 
> 'Roseanne' Canceled at ABC


Awesome news. She's a horrible person.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Wow.

ABC:


> "Roseanne's Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show," ABC Entertainment president Channing Dungey said in a statement.


The thing is, it's not_ her_ show. There is a full crew and a full cast who are impacted by this, economically and career-wise. Not to mention the viewers. Isn't there a better way of handling matters, especially in a case like this? (I'm not saying that there is, having just read the report, but I wonder. Innocent livelihoods are affected.)


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Mikeguy said:


> Wow.
> 
> ABC:
> 
> The thing is, it's not_ her_ show. There is a full crew and a full cast who are impacted by this, economically and career-wise. Not to mention the viewers. Isn't there a better way of handling matters, especially in a case like this? (I'm not saying that there is, having just read the report, but I wonder. Innocent livelihoods are affected.)


That's on her, not them. If I worked on her show (and it _is _her show), I'd be mad at her, not ABC.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

Mikeguy said:


> Wow.
> 
> ABC:
> 
> The thing is, it's not_ her_ show. There is a full crew and a full cast who are impacted by this, economically and career-wise. Not to mention the viewers. Isn't there a better way of handling matters, especially in a case like this? (I'm not saying that there is, having just read the report, but I wonder. Innocent livelihoods are affected.)


The onus is on Barr.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Does she own the show or does ABC? Can Netflix or someone pick it up?

I haven't read the tweet, but another reason I'm glad I'm not on twitter.


----------



## nickels (Jan 11, 2010)

Like I said before, her character is a better person than her real life self. Good riddance.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

Adam1115 said:


> Does she own the show or does ABC? Can Netflix or someone pick it up?
> 
> I haven't read the tweet, but another reason I'm glad I'm not on twitter.


Just read the article linked above. Don't need to be on twitter to read a variety.com article. She made a racist comment calling a woman an ape.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

This show has been on quite the roller coaster ride these last couple months. I'm sure people thought the show would go nowhere. Then it gets HUGE ratings and a second season. Now it is done.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

Mikeguy said:


> Wow.
> 
> ABC:
> 
> The thing is, it's not_ her_ show. There is a full crew and a full cast who are impacted by this, economically and career-wise. Not to mention the viewers. Isn't there a better way of handling matters, especially in a case like this? (I'm not saying that there is, having just read the report, but I wonder. Innocent livelihoods are affected.)


Just a note, Wanda Sykes left the show due to the comment. Says she was a consulting producer. The show might have had a full crew and cast, but I wouldn't doubt many/most/all of them find her racism unacceptable too.

If the CEO of a company made a racist comment, they'd probably fire her/him. Problem here is the CEO is also the star of the show. Can't continue on with a show called Roseanne, without Roseanne. So, the show just gets cancelled.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Sarah Gilbert was also a producer and issued a statement strongly opposed to Barr's tweet. I'm not sure whether she quit or threatened to, though.

I'm disappointed but believe ABC did the right thing in the long run by firing Barr the only way they could.


----------



## nickels (Jan 11, 2010)

Be the judge yourselves - here is the tweet. Spoiler to hide it just to be safe.



Spoiler: Racist moron said what



muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj,



VJ is Valerie Jarrett, a former aide to Obama. Spoiler alert, she is an African American. She also attacked Hillary and Chelsea Clinton as well.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Adam1115 said:


> Can Netflix or someone pick it up?


Sure, they probably could. But would a respectable company pick up a show that was cancelled because the lead of the show made a racist tweet?


----------



## ThePennyDropped (Jul 5, 2006)

BrettStah said:


> Sure, they probably could. But would a respectable company pick up a show that was cancelled because the lead of the show made a racist tweet?


Fox might. After all, someone has to battle the forces of political correctness, or so they'll tell you.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

BrettStah said:


> That's on her, not them. If I worked on her show (and it _is _her show), I'd be mad at her, not ABC.


But the effect is the same--people are out of work.

At this point, I don't really think that it_ is_ RB's show--she wasn't the driving force here--but of course, is the lead character.

I just look at the harm done here for a seemingly stupid, single comment. Censure her publicly instead, but let the show continue? Send her to HR sensitivity training/a psych.?


brianric said:


> The onus is on Barr.


But, again, the effect is the same: people are out of work today. Because of RB and a single, stupid tweet. My question: is that needed? How about even write an episode about this incident (and I don't include the recent neighbor incident the same)?


----------



## nickels (Jan 11, 2010)

Some of you are acting like it was only one tweet. She has a history of crazy ass tweeting. This was just the straw that broke the camels back.


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

Mikeguy said:


> Wow.
> 
> ABC:
> 
> The thing is, it's not_ her_ show. There is a full crew and a full cast who are impacted by this, economically and career-wise. Not to mention the viewers. Isn't there a better way of handling matters, especially in a case like this? (I'm not saying that there is, having just read the report, but I wonder. Innocent livelihoods are affected.)


But _her_ name is in the title. There's no way they could fire her and keep the show.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Mikeguy said:


> But the effect is the same--people are out of work.
> 
> At this point, I don't really think that it_ is_ RB's show--she wasn't the driving force here--but of course, is the lead character.
> 
> ...


You can minimize it to a "single, stupid tweet", but ABC isn't looking at this in a vacuum. There's history with Barr and racist comments. So much so that people were surprised they hired her again. My guess is she was private put on a short leash ("Look Roseanne, these past statements/tweets you made are unacceptable, and if there are any future ones, we're going to fire you").

Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if Goodman, Gilbert, and/or Metcalf made it clear to ABC they were done with the show, after this most recent example of Barr's racism.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

Adam1115 said:


> Does she own the show or does ABC? Can Netflix or someone pick it up?


It's owned by Carsey-Werner, I think.

In theory, they can take it to someone else, but as long as her name is on it, who's going to touch it?

On the other hand, can they write her out somehow, change the name, and hope somebody - even ABC - is willing to pick it up? It wouldn't be the first time; remember when Valerie Harper's show _Valerie_ became _The Hogan Family_ with Sandy Duncan? (Or when _8 Simple Rules For Dating My Teenage Daughter_ changed direction when John Ritter died?)

Yes, the show is primarily about Roseanne, but it's also about the people around her. I think John Goodman is more than capable of covering for Barr's role. The real question may be, will the fan base support the show without her? (For that matter, the _real_ real question might be, how much of the fan base agreed with the offending tweet?)


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

Mikeguy said:


> I just look at the harm done here for a seemingly stupid, single comment.


There was a whole storm of tweets that day, ranging from the racist one to various conspiracy-related ones. People may be refusing to continue to work on the show. It's not clear to me that ABC has much of a choice unless they're willing to lose the other creative staff on the show.

As for anyone else picking it up, they're going to run into the same problems that ABC would have going forward with it, plus a huge liability that they'd be committing to and paying for a property that could blow up again at any time. Nobody is going to touch this.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Royster said:


> But _her_ name is in the title. There's no way they could fire her and keep the show.


On first glance, I agree--they couldn't get rid of her and keep the show. Although I do recall the Valerie Harper salary dispute with "Valerie," when the network said no, and added Sandy Duncan to the cast after not continuing with VH and changed the show's name to "Valerie's Family"/"The Hogan Family."

Again, I just wonder: can't something like this be handled differently/should it be?


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

nickels said:


> Some of you are acting like it was only one tweet. *She has a history of crazy ass tweeting. *This was just the straw that broke the camels back.


In _many _ways.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Mikeguy said:


> On first glance, I agree--they couldn't get rid of her and keep the show. Although I do recall the Valerie Harper salary dispute with "Valerie," when the network said no, and added Sandy Duncan to the cast after not continuing with VH and changed the show's name to "Valerie's Family"/"The Hogan Family."
> 
> Again, I just wonder: can't something like this be handled differently/should it be?


I have a feeling that too many who worked on the show would not want to return at this point.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Mikeguy said:


> Again, I just wonder: can't something like this be handled differently/should it be?


Sure, there are an infinite number of ways to handle things. They could have announced she is fired, and that they are going to proceed without her (maybe hire Patricia Heaton to come in, now that _The Middle_ had ended). But they didn't choose to do that (yet, at least). But having it named _Roseanne _makes it harder to do that sort of change (I don't recall The Hogan Family being super successful, but maybe it continued on for many years).

There are TV shows every year, and they all need actors and staff, so anyone working on _Roseanne _will probably not be out of work for too long, if they are talented in what they do. Plus, as mentioned already, there are likely many people working on the show who no longer want to be associated with it.


----------



## dwells (Nov 3, 2001)

That Don Guy said:


> It's owned by Carsey-Werner, I think.
> 
> In theory, they can take it to someone else, but as long as her name is on it, who's going to touch it?
> 
> ...


I agree- I saw one TV writer today say that they should kill her character off and rename the show "The Conner Family". I would still watch that.

But I don't think it will happen.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

BrettStah said:


> You can minimize it to a "single, stupid tweet", but ABC isn't looking at this in a vacuum. There's history with Barr and racist comments. So much so that people were surprised they hired her again. My guess is she was private put on a short leash ("Look Roseanne, these past statements/tweets you made are unacceptable, and if there are any future ones, we're going to fire you").
> 
> Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if Goodman, Gilbert, and/or Metcalf made it clear to ABC they were done with the show, after this most recent example of Barr's racism.


As a major producer of the show and having put in lots of efforts here, my guess is different as to Sara Gilbert--she may have something of a question if this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and whether it is absolutely necessary. This is going to hit her and the others significantly, $-wise.

I don't know about RB's other conduct, as the tweet world seems to be so much of a cesspool and so much muck noise. And I was not trying to minimize anything--_please_ do not mis-read my inquiry. I was only looking at this single post, which is the one that had been raised, and am not aware of much other conduct since the show re-debuted.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Mikeguy said:


> I was only looking at this single post, which is the one that had been raised, and am not aware of much other conduct since the show re-debuted.


The problem is looking _only _at this single tweet. She has a well-known history, and ABC knew about it. Chances are they warned her ahead of time when they decided to risk things by renewing her show.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

You know what would be really funny is if they just replaced her with another actress and pretended like nothing happened, like they did with Becky years ago.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

That Don Guy said:


> It's owned by Carsey-Werner, I think.
> 
> In theory, they can take it to someone else, but as long as her name is on it, who's going to touch it?
> 
> ...





dwells said:


> I agree- I saw one TV writer today say that they should kill her character off and rename the show "The Conner Family". I would still watch that.
> 
> But I don't think it will happen.





BrettStah said:


> Sure, there are an infinite number of ways to handle things. They could have announced she is fired, and that they are going to proceed without her (maybe hire Patricia Heaton to come in, now that _The Middle_ had ended). But they didn't choose to do that (yet, at least). But having it named _Roseanne _makes it harder to do that sort of change (I don't recall The Hogan Family being super successful, but maybe it continued on for many years).





BrettStah said:


> There are TV shows every year, and they all need actors and staff, so anyone working on _Roseanne _will probably not be out of work for too long, if they are talented in what they do. Plus, as mentioned already, there are likely many people working on the show who no longer want to be associated with it.


Yes, the actors can get other work, but this was a cash cow for their lives. And there is a huge crew behind the scenes--yes, they hopefully all can get other work, but also can have a financial hit. This, sadly, has a potential for being all of their own hurricane damage. (But, the entertainment business can be so much of that--it's definitely not a routine, 9-5 job.)

So, here's an idea: a new season named "The Connors," with Dan writing a book in the basement in the first episode, in the first chapter/paragraph of which the character Roseanne dies . . . . 

Again, I always wonder, in these circumstances: isn't something less drastic possible, so that innocent lives are not upheaved? (Of course, RB would need to play ball as well, in certain scenarios--would she even agree to.)


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> You know what would be really funny is if they just replaced her with another actress and pretended like nothing happened, like they did with Becky years ago.


:up: :up: :up:


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

dwells said:


> I agree- I saw one TV writer today say that they should kill her character off and rename the show "The Conner Family". I would still watch that.
> 
> But I don't think it will happen.


It's probably a can of worms. She's probably entitled to compensation even if they fire her, and there most certainly would end up being a lawsuit.


----------



## mrdbdigital (Feb 3, 2004)

Mikeguy said:


> But the effect is the same--people are out of work.
> 
> At this point, I don't really think that it_ is_ RB's show--she wasn't the driving force here--but of course, is the lead character.
> 
> ...


That's the nature of the business. There are no employment guarantees in the television production business.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

BrettStah said:


> The problem is looking _only _at this single tweet. She has a well-known history, and ABC knew about it. Chances are they warned her ahead of time when they decided to risk things by renewing her show.


I only referred to the single tweet because that is the only one reported here--please don't take my comments/questioning otherwise. And you might be right as to ABC warnings--RB seems to be a bit of a wild card--but that is speculation, at least as mentioned here and in the ABC link.
​


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

mrdbdigital said:


> That's the nature of the business. There are no employment guarantees in the television production business.


Yep, as I noted above, it's naturally precarious--even worse for stage actors and crew. Safe for those with a trust fund or those with a $-supporting significant other. I often wonder about their ulcer rates . . . .

Perhaps a reason why I keep on wondering about the result here.


----------



## Crow159 (Jul 28, 2004)

If they wanted to, they had a pretty good way of writing Roseanne off the show. It ended with her getting knee surgery soon, it would be easily written that she dies on the table during that surgery.

I would imagine that if the show continued without her, she may still get royalties from it. That might also be a reason to scrap it all.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Mikeguy said:


> I only referred to the single tweet because that is the only one reported here--please don't take my comments/questioning otherwise. And you might be right as to ABC warnings--RB seems to be a bit of a wild card--but that is speculation, at least as mentioned here and in the ABC link.
> ​


I'd think ABC would be smart enough to have warned her, but it is speculation. We can all feel bad about the rest of the show's employees, just like we can feel bad for all of the other shows that have been cancelled. The only difference here is the reason for the cancellation. It's for the star's own racist statements, instead of ratings, or money dispute, or the star wanting to move on to a movie career, etc. In the end though, no matter why it's cancelled, the people who worked on the show are no longer employed by that show.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

BrettStah said:


> I'd think ABC would be smart enough to have warned her, but it is speculation. We can all feel bad about the rest of the show's employees, just like we can feel bad for all of the other shows that have been cancelled. The only difference here is the reason for the cancellation. It's for the star's own racist statements, instead of ratings, or money dispute, or the star wanting to move on to a movie career, etc. In the end though, no matter why it's cancelled, the people who worked on the show are no longer employed by that show.


I could even see ABC having written a specific clause into RB's contract, as to conduct issues.

I caught myself thinking, "Foolish, foolish lady . . .," as a performance/business matter. Maybe she just doesn't care (although she did try to eliminate the tweet--at least she recognized something) or just can't stop herself--she no doubt has money for many lives. And then going back to the basic of, how sad her conduct to begin with.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

ThePennyDropped said:


> Fox might. After all, someone has to battle the forces of political correctness, or so they'll tell you.


Don't confuse fox TV with Fox News.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Wow, I don’t really follow Twitter so I didn't know of her tweeting background. 

But, why would you publicly say some something so patently rude and offensive in such a public manner? Especially when you’re on top of the world and everyone is extolling your creative efforts?

You can vociferously disagree with someone without disrespecting them. 

You can’t control what’s in people’s hearts. And I guess some people can’t control what comes out of their thumbs.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Royster said:


> But _her_ name is in the title. There's no way they could fire her and keep the show.


Let me introduce you to a show called Valerie for Valerie Harper.

ETA: Oops, smeek!


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

huh, so maybe there is such a thing as bad publicity


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

RGM1138 said:


> Wow, I don't really follow Twitter so I didn't know of her tweeting background.
> 
> But, why would you publicly say some something so patently rude and offensive in such a public manner? Especially when you're on top of the world and everyone is extolling your creative efforts?
> 
> ...


Have you missed all her years of erratic and errr... _questionable_ behavior in the pre Twitter days?
(Or even when the show was on it's first run?)

As noted up thread, I'm not sure that she actually has any ownership rights to the show.
I remember her complaining that she was "forced" to sign away her rights for creating the show and/or didn't hold out for them (unlike Seinfeld, who held onto them in negotiations and got a credit for it in every episode) even though it was based on her stand up.

So the show could theoretically continue without her. Whether or not she gets any financial remuneration from potential future episodes I think would depend on her current contract.

But it says a lot that Sara Gilbert was the creative driving force behind the revival.

(Side note: Carsey-Werner were the one who also backed the wildly successful Cosby Show.)


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

Recast the role with Melissa McCarthy. Done.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Mikeguy said:


> Wow.
> 
> ABC:
> 
> The thing is, it's not_ her_ show. There is a full crew and a full cast who are impacted by this, economically and career-wise. Not to mention the viewers. Isn't there a better way of handling matters, especially in a case like this? (I'm not saying that there is, having just read the report, but I wonder. Innocent livelihoods are affected.)


Sure. Kill off her character and do the show without her. Not unprecedented, and would probably be a better show.
Netflix or Amazon with probably pick it up, they have no heart.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Tony_T said:


> Sure. Kill off her character and do the show without her. Not unprecedented, and would probably be a better show.
> Netflix or Amazon with probably pick it up, they have no heart.


Seems like giving the people who didn't tweet racist thoughts on a regular basis continuing employment would be showing heart.


----------



## MarkofT (Jul 27, 2001)

JYoung said:


> Have you missed all her years of erratic and errr... _questionable_ behavior in the pre Twitter days?
> (Or even when the show was on it's first run?)


My step-mom quit watching her show after the national anthem episode.

She's not profane like Andrew Dice Clay, but she's just as much a shock comic.

They can't really write her off completely in the show, she's not just the main character, but also the general motivation behind most of the plots. The show is the story of her relationships with her family and friends.



JYoung said:


> (Side note: Carsey-Werner were the one who also backed the wildly successful Cosby Show.)


Carsey-Werner is responsible or vast chunks of the popular TV shows of the 80s, 90s, & and into the 00s. Chuck Lorre came out of there, creating or producing many of their shows and now firmly in control of the TV airwaves. And I don't think there is one of their shows that doesn't have a good behind the scenes controversy or controversial actors.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

JYoung said:


> Have you missed all her years of erratic and errr... _questionable_ behavior in the pre Twitter days?
> (Or even when the show was on it's first run?)
> 
> As noted up thread, I'm not sure that she actually has any ownership rights to the show.
> ...


Yeah, I guess I did. I don't tend to follow celebs unless they're on a show or movie I'm interested in. And then, it more involves what they do on the project rather than what they do in the wild.

For instance, I can't tell a Kardashian from any other social media figure. It's just not my thing.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Lest anyone think that this is an isolated incident for Barr:
ABC canceled Roseanne's show over a racist tweet. Her feed's been full of racism and conspiracy theories for a decade.

Also:
Why ABC had to cancel Roseanne


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

MarkofT said:


> Carsey-Werner is responsible or vast chunks of the popular TV shows of the 80s, 90s, & and into the 00s. Chuck Lorre came out of there, creating or producing many of their shows and now firmly in control of the TV airwaves. And I don't think there is one of their shows that doesn't have a good behind the scenes controversy or controversial actors.


I dunno, I don't recall hearing about any real drama backstage on The Big Bang Theory.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

My wife said at least one of the other actors had already contacted her agent to start the process of quitting, before ABC cancelled the show. I bet she wasn't alone.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Ms Barr's Tweet is being defended by Ted Nugent and Alex Jones.
Good call to cancel by ABC


----------



## Azlen (Nov 25, 2002)

JYoung said:


> I dunno, I don't recall hearing about any real drama backstage on The Big Bang Theory.


Well there was that one season where Kaley cut her hair.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

BrettStah said:


> My wife said at least one of the other actors had already contacted her agent to start the process of quitting, before ABC cancelled the show. I bet she wasn't alone.


Yes, that was the young lady who is also on Shameless and played Darlene's daughter. That was great casting, IMO. I respect her, and Wanda Sykes, and I believe there was another who was quitting, for standing up.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Repeats also dropped from Viacom networks & Laff.

'Roseanne' To Be Pulled From Viacom Cable Networks As Of Tomorrow


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Mikeguy said:


> Wow.
> 
> ABC:
> 
> The thing is, it's not_ her_ show. There is a full crew and a full cast who are impacted by this, economically and career-wise. Not to mention the viewers. Isn't there a better way of handling matters, especially in a case like this? (I'm not saying that there is, having just read the report, but I wonder. Innocent livelihoods are affected.)


Maybe decline the offer to come back to the show, because the lead actress is a horrible racist dangerous nutjob?

-smak-


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

realityboy said:


> Repeats also dropped from Viacom networks & Laff.
> 
> 'Roseanne' To Be Pulled From Viacom Cable Networks As Of Tomorrow


Hulu? Hulu?


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

This is just a guess, but the 5 hours (?) between the Tweet, and the show being cancelled, was probably ABC going through all of the above exercises to see what they could possibly do besides cancelling the show.

-smak-


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

More likely getting the execs at Disney and ABC united before the announcement. 5 hrs is fast.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Tony_T said:


> Hulu? Hulu?


Yep.

'Roseanne' Pulled From Hulu Amid Backlash Against Star's Offensive Tweets

The full Cosby.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

Another option could have been to pull a Darren Stevens switch-a-roo (a la "Bewitched") and not even mention it! Swap in Suzanne Somers as the new & improved, lemon fresh Roseanne. I'm pretty sure John Goodman wouldn't complain!


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

getreal said:


> Another option could have been to pull a Darren Stevens switch-a-roo (a la "Bewitched") and not even mention it! Swap in Suzanne Somers as the new & improved, lemon fresh Roseanne. I'm pretty sure John Goodman wouldn't complain!


That type of option has been discussed. Chances are Roseanne owns a good chunk of the show in some way or another, and would therefore still make money from it. I think ABC wants to cut all ties with her, financially and otherwise.


----------



## dwatt (Jan 11, 2007)

It is a good thing Tim Allen crested the wave when he did. If his negotiations took a little bit longer his show would have been out of luck.


----------



## mrizzo80 (Apr 17, 2012)

Wow, she cost a lot of people a lot of money today - and not just extremely highly paid actors like herself. Set designers, lighting techs, camera operators, etc. are all potentially out of a job because of what she did.

And with the original series getting pulled from syndication, I assume the future residual payments (for episode writers, producers, directors, etc.) just vanished as well.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Talk about whiplash. One day, you’re on top of the world. A stupid, unthinking comment later, you’re on your ass, wondering why you woke up that day.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

RGM1138 said:


> Talk about whiplash. One day, you're on top of the world. A stupid, unthinking comment later, you're on your ass, wondering why you woke up that day.


Worst part is that applies to everyone who had a hand in the show, not just the one who made the "stupid, unthinking comment".


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

mrizzo80 said:


> Wow, she cost a lot of people a lot of money today - and not just extremely highly paid actors like herself. Set designers, lighting techs, camera operators, etc. are all potentially out of a job because of what she did.


With as often as shows get canceled, I have to imagine that they're used to it. They're on unemployment for a little bit until another show begins production. And right now, all sorts of new shows are just getting geared up and they'll need new crews of their own.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> With as often as shows get canceled, I have to imagine that they're used to it. They're on unemployment for a little bit until another show begins production. And right now, all sorts of new shows are just getting geared up and they'll need new crews of their own.


I assume a lot of the basic crew works on multiple shows. I can't imagine they're paid well enough to work on an 8 episode season and be set for the entire year.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

BrettStah said:


> Chances are Roseanne owns a good chunk of the show in some way or another, and would therefore still make money from it.


Yeah... I know there's some debate as to how *much* involvement she had in the creation of the show, but at least a little bit of the Roseanne Arnold character was based on her "domestic goddess" stand-up routine.


----------



## MLR930 (Dec 26, 2002)

realityboy said:


> Repeats also dropped from Viacom networks & Laff.
> 
> 'Roseanne' To Be Pulled From Viacom Cable Networks As Of Tomorrow


And yet Cosby Show reruns still air


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

MLR930 said:


> And yet Cosby Show reruns still air


Cosby was dropped almost everywhere as well. I think TVOne still has reruns, but he was also dropped from TVLand, etc.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

Disney does not own the show so the producers of the show can shop it around to another network like Fox. Fox is owned by 21st Century Fox (aka Fox News Corp) and even if Fox is sold to Disney or Comcast, the Fox TV networks, most of Fox Sports, and Fox News will remain under the Murdock Family control.
Roseanne always did controversial things like grabbing her crotch at a baseball game when singing the national anthem. Americans have really short attention spans and this will blow over and be forgotten in a week or two as they will move on to the next crisis/controversy. Besides the ratings for the show were really high so it wont stay off the air for long.
Roseanne - Wikipedia
21st Century Fox - Wikipedia


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

mrizzo80 said:


> Wow, she cost a lot of people a lot of money today - and not just extremely highly paid actors like herself. Set designers, lighting techs, camera operators, etc. are all potentially out of a job because of what she did.


Likely they won't be unemployed for long. The stink of Rosanne won't follow them.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> And cancelled.
> 
> 'Roseanne' Canceled at ABC


Crap!!! And I was looking forward to watching the next thirteen episodes in the Autumn.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

RGM1138 said:


> Talk about whiplash. One day, you're on top of the world. A stupid, unthinking comment later, you're on your ass, wondering why you woke up that day.


If only that applied to other jobs of certain other people who make stupid, unthinking comments.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

BrettStah said:


> If only that applied to other jobs of certain other people who make stupid, unthinking comments.


Yeah to bad we don't apply same moral standards to our politicians that we do our TV actors.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

BrettStah said:


> If only that applied to other jobs of certain other people who make stupid, unthinking comments.


Not gonna touch that with a 10 meter cattle prod. (Learned my lesson).


----------



## dwatt (Jan 11, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> Yeah to bad we don't apply same moral standards to our politicians that we do our TV actors.


Not fair.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

smak said:


> Maybe decline the offer to come back to the show, because the lead actress is a horrible racist dangerous nutjob?


I understand that sentiment. But I also haven't heard that RB mistreated her fellow cast. Her poor conduct was her extra-curricular activity.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

Tony_T said:


> Likely they won't be unemployed for long. The stink of Rosanne won't follow them.


Technically no one is unemployed since the show has not ended production but is no longer going to be on ABC. Also no one on the show quit, some of the actors just only denounced Roseanne's comments. If the show gets picked up by another network then everybody still has a job as they are not employees of Disney/ABC.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Jed1 said:


> Also no one on the show quit.


Not true. Wanda Sykes quit hours before it was cancelled, and supposedly at least one actress contacted her agent to begin the quitting process (the actress who missed also on Shameless).


----------



## MLR930 (Dec 26, 2002)

Jed1 said:


> Technically no one is unemployed since the show has not ended production but is no longer going to be on ABC. Also no one on the show quit, some of the actors just only denounced Roseanne's comments. If the show gets picked up by another network then everybody still has a job as they are not employees of Disney/ABC.


Actually it was reported that the actress who plays Darlene's daughter called her agent to quit the show and found out it was canceled


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Jed1 said:


> Technically no one is unemployed since the show has not ended production but is no longer going to be on ABC. Also no one on the show quit, some of the actors just only denounced Roseanne's comments. If the show gets picked up by another network then everybody still has a job as they are not employees of Disney/ABC.


Wanda Sykes quit this morning before the cancellation. I don't think any of the actors had quit yet, but they're likely not willing to work with her. No one's picking it up.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

realityboy said:


> Wanda Sykes quit this morning before the cancellation. I don't think any of the actors had quit yet, but they're likely not willing to work with her. No one's picking it up.





MLR930 said:


> Actually it was reported that the actress who plays Darlene's daughter called her agent to quit the show and found out it was canceled





BrettStah said:


> Not true. Wanda Sykes quit hours before it was cancelled, and supposedly at least one actress contacted her agent to begin the quitting process (the actress who missed also on Shameless).


Wanda Sykes is just a producer on the show and not a key actor/actress. Also the daughter already has a lucrative job on Shameless that is still in production. She can easily be written out of or replaced as she was new to the show anyway.
As for the show getting picked up just give it some time as this will fall out of the news by next week and other networks can take a look at picking up the show. I can see the show not getting picked up if there was really low ratings but the numbers this show pulled in was very high. In fact it was the highest rated show this season.
It is not that I approve of what she said but I can not see other networks passing up the money and the ratings.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> With as often as shows get canceled, I have to imagine that they're used to it. They're on unemployment for a little bit until another show begins production. And right now, all sorts of new shows are just getting geared up and they'll need new crews of their own.


Right but what about the royalties the actors were getting from the reruns? They just lost all of that as well.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Jed1 said:


> I can not see other networks passing up the money and the ratings.


What network(s) do you see picking up the show?


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Adam1115 said:


> Right but what about the royalties the actors were getting from the reruns? They just lost all of that as well.


Yep, just like the Cosby Show actors and their royalties.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Jed1 said:


> As for the show getting picked up just give it some time as this will fall out of the news by next week and other networks can take a look at picking up the show. I can see the show not getting picked up if there was really low ratings but the numbers this show pulled in was very high. In fact it was the highest rated show this season.
> It is not that I approve of what she said but I can not see other networks passing up the money and the ratings.


What money and what ratings? That's over.

And this wasn't a one off thing. The reason nobody should pick up the show, is she's about 100% likely to do something this bad again.

And also, there's something wrong with her. She's not right in the head.

She thinks a 14 year old collaborated with the Nazis, and there was a child sex slave network run in the basement of a pizza joint with no basement.

-smak-


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Jed1 said:


> Wanda Sykes is just a producer on the show and not a key actor/actress. Also the daughter already has a lucrative job on Shameless that is still in production. She can easily be written out of or replaced as she was new to the show anyway.
> As for the show getting picked up just give it some time as this will fall out of the news by next week and other networks can take a look at picking up the show. I can see the show not getting picked up if there was really low ratings but the numbers this show pulled in was very high. In fact it was the highest rated show this season.
> It is not that I approve of what she said but I can not see other networks passing up the money and the ratings.


Fox already weighed in:

James Murdoch On 'Roseanne' Cancellation: It's Not About Ratings, "It's About What's The Right Thing To Do"

Hulu & Viacom dropped the reruns. She's radioactive. No one's touching her for at least a few years.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

realityboy said:


> Fox already weighed in:
> 
> James Murdoch On 'Roseanne' Cancellation: It's Not About Ratings, "It's About What's The Right Thing To Do"
> 
> Hulu & Viacom dropped the reruns. She's radioactive. No one's touching her for at least a few years.


This is just another attempt by the Hollywood elite to shut down different viewpoints.

The owner of (looks down at paper) um FOX, er uh...

-smak-


----------



## mrdazzo7 (Jan 8, 2006)

lol that people think this will get picked up by someone else... The PR around her comment is so bad that ABC pulled the plug within hours of her post - a show that was by far their most successful new show of the season (possibly of the last couple of years), and one that they stood to make millions upon millions of dollars on over the next few seasons they were likely to put out (between ad time on original airings, plus syndication deals, etc). The show was absolutely huge for them... And they cut it with ZERO debate or dilly-dallying. They did that because the comment wasn't just "a bit offensive", or "questionable" - it was disgusting, and openly racist... No one else is gonna be like "yeah but we'll still air your show!". Ride's over. 

Absolutely prime example of how this NEED people have to put every thought that crosses their mind onto the internet can end up costing you. I want to start collecting all these examples and put them in a book that I can show future generations as a sort of cautionary tale... "Guess what kids, if you grow up to be rich and successful, you CAN have thoughts that you just keep to yourself!! And if you DO put every horrific thought that crosses your mind into the public eye, then you have to live with the fallout". 

This dumb ass took out her phone and for absolutely no reason whatsoever, typed two sentences that ended her career, and harmed the careers of everyone on that show. WHY?????


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Jed1 said:


> Besides the ratings for the show were really high so it wont stay off the air for long.


$100 says this show is dead. Forever. This ain't ratings, this is toxic.

Also, remember how long it took before Mel Gibson got a role again? Multiply that X10.


----------



## John Gillespie (Oct 27, 2016)

At least Kramer can still collect royalties


----------



## John Gillespie (Oct 27, 2016)

GoPackGo said:


> Recast the role with Melissa McCarthy. Done.


Rosie O'Donnell


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

mrdazzo7 said:


> This dumb ass took out her phone and for absolutely no reason whatsoever, typed two sentences that ended her career, and harmed the careers of everyone on that show. WHY?????


I think the first part of your first sentence provided the answer to your question


----------



## nickels (Jan 11, 2010)

Stupid Ambien. Side effects may include loss of brain cells and exposing your inner racist thoughts.

Roseanne Barr Returns to Twitter: 'Don't Feel Sorry For Me'


----------



## Generic (Dec 27, 2005)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1001793897251549185


----------



## TiVo'Brien (Feb 8, 2002)

John Gillespie said:


> Rosie O'Donnell


You mean they aren't the same person? (I always confuse the two.)


----------



## John Gillespie (Oct 27, 2016)

TiVo'Brien said:


> You mean they aren't the same person? (I always confuse the two.)


I was just thinking of a left-acceptible celeb who has put their ABC-aired racist comment behind them.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

realityboy said:


> Fox already weighed in:
> 
> James Murdoch On 'Roseanne' Cancellation: It's Not About Ratings, "It's About What's The Right Thing To Do"
> 
> Hulu & Viacom dropped the reruns. She's radioactive. No one's touching her for at least a few years.


Yes but he did not say that Fox would not pick up the show or not. He carefully spoke about the pitfalls of social media and he said that Disney had to weight the pros and cons and make a decision they believe to be appropriate to their business. He also mentioned that Fox had to let go of O'Reilly. There is one difference though O'Reilly created a hostile work environment while on company property and may have committed crimes because of his behavior where as Roseanne was not doing this at work or inflicting this on her coworkers. This is something she did on her own time and at her own place. Also it is not against the law what she did. Tasteless yes but illegal no.
And no I am not defending what she said but only pointing out the fact that the possibility does exist that the show can get picked up by someone else. Americans will be outraged by something else with in a week or two and this will be forgotten about.

Also Disney makes more of it revenue from its theme parks than it does from it media unit which is reported to be around 10% of their profits.
'Roseanne' Ejection Not Likely A Major Financial Hit To ABC And Disney, Except For Ad Sales That Might Have Been


> CEO Bob Iger and his team did not give it more than a passing mention in the Q2 earnings call with analysts, perhaps a reflection of the fact that *the Media Networks division accounts for just 7% of operating profit at the overall company, which makes much more from theme parks.*
> 
> Another reason the cancellation will not have a longer-term financial impact: *the series is not owned by Disney but rather independent production company Carsey-Werner*. In fact, Disney Media Distribution, Disney's international sales arm, had a first window to close global sales on the revival's first season before rights reverted back Carsey-Werner and its own sales division.


Since the financial impact is not that great to Disney's bottom line it was any easy call for them to make. Besides as it states all sales will revert back to Carsey-Werner now that the first season was already in the bag. It will be up to Carsey-Werner to pitch the show to someone else and even make changes to personnel if they decide to move forward.


----------



## MPSAN (Jun 20, 2009)

My wife had a great idea.
1. Change the name to the Conners.
2. The last season ended with Roseanne going in for knee surgery and was afraid.
3. Have her die from complications during surgery.
4. Dan remarries and the show goes on.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Dan was dead for the last season of the previous run so anything's possible.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

MPSAN said:


> My wife had a great idea.
> 1. Change the name to the Conners.
> 2. The last season ended with Roseanne going in for knee surgery and was afraid.
> 3. Have her die from complications during surgery.
> 4. Dan remarries and the show goes on.


And Roseanne Barr continues to profit from the show.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Jed1 said:


> And no I am not defending what she said but only pointing out the fact that the possibility does exist that the show can get picked up by someone else. Americans will be outraged by something else with in a week or two and this will be forgotten about.


You keep bringing up this same point, so I'll keep pointing out how I believe you are wrong.

She will never work in Hollywood again. Never. She burnt a bridge that can't be rebuilt. There's not enough time left in her life to overcome this. She's finished.



Jed1 said:


> Since the financial impact is not that great to Disney's bottom line it was any easy call for them to make. Besides as it states all sales will revert back to Carsey-Werner now that the first season was already in the bag. It will be up to Carsey-Werner to pitch the show to someone else and even make changes to personnel if they decide to move forward.


This was ABC's biggest new hit, and a big moneymaker for them. Let's not denigrate their actions with "Oh, it was no big deal, easy call to make". They made a tough decision, and they made it quickly and decisively. Kudos to them for their guts on this. As they said, "it was the right thing to do", but that doesn't mean it was easy.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> And Roseanne Barr continues to profit from the show.


That seems to be the most popular response to the suggestion of keeping the show going without Barr.

But would she? How much of a stake does she have in the current version of the show?


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

BrettStah said:


> And Roseanne Barr continues to profit from the show.


Is it ABC's responsibility to punish Roseanne Barr, or is it ABC's responsibility to broadcast television for profit? Do you know that she would have continued to earn money from the show in her absence? Maybe her contract was written in such a way that she could be fired for cause, perhaps (knowing her history) even for specific named causes, and lose her right to future earnings.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

astrohip said:


> She will never work in Hollywood again. Never. She burnt a bridge that can't be rebuilt. There's not enough time left in her life to overcome this. She's finished.


Sorry, but: nah. She will have work as a standup comic, if she wants it. If you don't consider that really Hollywood (which I can see), she also will have work in films if there's a right role for her. But the fact of the matter is, RB is not Meryl Streep and there are many actresses who can do what she can, and more (and I don't mean that as an insult). It seems to me that that is the most limiting factor for her, in the end. The only reason she got the role of Roseanne in the "Roseanne" re-boot is that she was the original--it wasn't because the producers wanted the most talented comic actress they could find.

And, of course, she don't need the $.


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

astrohip said:


> You keep bringing up this same point, so I'll keep pointing out how I believe you are wrong.
> 
> She will never work in Hollywood again. Never. She burnt a bridge that can't be rebuilt. There's not enough time left in her life to overcome this. She's finished.


I don't believe that she's finished. She came back from the Hitler disaster so she could come back from this too. People are easily distracted and will forget about it in short order. For me, I heard about it and didn't pay much attention to it since it really didn't make any sense. Just thought to myself another stupid comment in a long line of them by Roseanne, who didn't see that coming?


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

astrohip said:


> You keep bringing up this same point, so I'll keep pointing out how I believe you are wrong.
> 
> She will never work in Hollywood again. Never. She burnt a bridge that can't be rebuilt. There's not enough time left in her life to overcome this. She's finished.
> 
> This was ABC's biggest new hit, and a big moneymaker for them. Let's not denigrate their actions with "Oh, it was no big deal, easy call to make". They made a tough decision, and they made it quickly and decisively. Kudos to them for their guts on this. As they said, "it was the right thing to do", but that doesn't mean it was easy.


First of all the only thing she did was use a derogatory comment against one person which is not against the law. Was it in bad taste yes but she did not commit a felony. She also did not use Disney property to spew these comments she did this on her own time and at her own place. Like I said outrage in this country does not last long and very soon Americans will move onto the next outrage and by fall this current outrage will be a long distant memory. Time will tell if this show gets picked up by someone else and I would not be surprised if it does.

As for Disney they made all the money they could with this show with the first season reboot. Going forward the lion share of the money would go to the producer and owner of the show which is Carsey-Werner. This was reported in the article I posted. It also states in that article that the total profit from all the Media Networks division amounts to only 7% of all profits. The lions share of profit comes from their theme parks. So dropping Roseanne now after the first season won't really hurt Disney at all which made the decision to let the show go wasn't all that difficult. Disney did not own the show or have any money invested in it all they did was air the show on their network. The actors work for the production company that owns the show.
'Roseanne' Ejection Not Likely A Major Financial Hit To ABC And Disney, Except For Ad Sales That Might Have Been


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Mikeguy said:


> Sorry, but: nah. She will have work as a standup comic, if she wants it. If you don't consider that really Hollywood (which I can see), she also will have work in films if there's a right role for her. But the fact of the matter is, RB is not Meryl Streep and there are many actresses who can do what she can, and more (and I don't mean that as an insult). It seems to me that that is the most limiting factor for her, in the end. The only reason she got the role of Roseanne in the "Roseanne" re-boot is that she was the original--it wasn't because the producers wanted the most talented comic actress they could find.
> 
> And, of course, she don't need the $.


I don't think she's really interested in standup. She had 1 standup performance scheduled in 2018, and now it has been canceled. She seemed fairly content to live her life outside of Hollywood. I don't think she would've came back if not for this show. Maybe she'll make another run at politics or another reality show like her last one after a cooling down period.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Well, she could always start her own podcast (but I wouldn't listen to it)


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

realityboy said:


> I don't think she's really interested in standup. She had 1 standup performance scheduled in 2018, and now it has been canceled. She seemed fairly content to live her life outside of Hollywood. I don't think she would've came back if not for this show. Maybe she'll make another run at politics or another reality show like her last one after a cooling down period.


I think you might be right. She likely has the privilege of not having to be concerned about supporting herself going forward, and can play at what she wants. I think that part of the draw of "Roseanne" for her and others in the cast was the nostalgia, and "coming back home." Also, the pocket change is nice, if for no other reason than our society seems to be wired that way in thinking of success.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Look at this news:
The Middle Spinoff Starring Eden Sher in the Works at ABC

That's going to be a lot of jobs due to it being picked up. Probably offsets roughly the jobs lost by Roseanne's cancellation.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

smbaker said:


> Is it ABC's responsibility to punish Roseanne Barr, or is it ABC's responsibility to broadcast television for profit? Do you know that she would have continued to earn money from the show in her absence? Maybe her contract was written in such a way that she could be fired for cause, perhaps (knowing her history) even for specific named causes, and lose her right to future earnings.


The most profitable option for ABC might be to keep the show intact but many people think ABC did the right thing.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Jed1 said:


> 'Roseanne' Ejection Not Likely A Major Financial Hit To ABC And Disney, Except For Ad Sales That Might Have Been


AFAIK ABC/Disney's business - how they make money - is in selling ads on their programs.

One point in the article is that advertisers may have been hanging back despite the ratings because they knew Barr could act out and damage the goodwill the show grew for her.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Roseanne Blasts Cast After Losing Their Jobs: "You Throw Me Under Bus. Nice!"

This might've been posted, but I missed it. She really should've just left Twitter.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Jed1 said:


> First of all the only thing she did was use a derogatory comment against one person which is not against the law. Was it in bad taste yes but she did not commit a felony. She also did not use Disney property to spew these comments she did this on her own time and at her own place. Like I said outrage in this country does not last long and very soon Americans will move onto the next outrage and by fall this current outrage will be a long distant memory. Time will tell if this show gets picked up by someone else and I would not be surprised if it does.
> 
> As for Disney they made all the money they could with this show with the first season reboot. Going forward the lion share of the money would go to the producer and owner of the show which is Carsey-Werner. This was reported in the article I posted. It also states in that article that the total profit from all the Media Networks division amounts to only 7% of all profits. The lions share of profit comes from their theme parks. So dropping Roseanne now after the first season won't really hurt Disney at all which made the decision to let the show go wasn't all that difficult. Disney did not own the show or have any money invested in it all they did was air the show on their network. The actors work for the production company that owns the show.
> 'Roseanne' Ejection Not Likely A Major Financial Hit To ABC And Disney, Except For Ad Sales That Might Have Been


It's still a long shot, but maybe without Roseanne.

Can 'Roseanne' Continue Without Its Star? "Possible But Not Probable"


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Mikeguy said:


> Sorry, but: nah. She will have work as a standup comic, if she wants it. If you don't consider that really Hollywood (which I can see), she also will have work in films if there's a right role for her.





crazywater said:


> I don't believe that she's finished. She came back from the Hitler disaster so she could come back from this too. People are easily distracted and will forget about it in short order. For me, I heard about it and didn't pay much attention to it since it really didn't make any sense. Just thought to myself another stupid comment in a long line of them by Roseanne, who didn't see that coming?


I meant Hollywood--that's TV, movies, and anything else that comes from the machine. And it's not people that will or won't forget, it's Hollywood that won't hire her. It really doesn't matter if people forgive her, if Hollywood never gives her another chance, then she's out. And they won't.



Jed1 said:


> First of all the only thing she did was use a derogatory comment against one person which is not against the law. Was it in bad taste yes but she did not commit a felony. She also did not use Disney property to spew these comments she did this on her own time and at her own place. Like I said outrage in this country does not last long and very soon Americans will move onto the next outrage and by fall this current outrage will be a long distant memory. Time will tell if this show gets picked up by someone else and I would not be surprised if it does.
> 
> As for Disney they made all the money they could with this show with the first season reboot. Going forward the lion share of the money would go to the producer and owner of the show which is Carsey-Werner. This was reported in the article I posted. It also states in that article that the total profit from all the Media Networks division amounts to only 7% of all profits. The lions share of profit comes from their theme parks. So dropping Roseanne now after the first season won't really hurt Disney at all which made the decision to let the show go wasn't all that difficult. Disney did not own the show or have any money invested in it all they did was air the show on their network. The actors work for the production company that owns the show.
> 'Roseanne' Ejection Not Likely A Major Financial Hit To ABC And Disney, Except For Ad Sales That Might Have Been


I really don't get people that defend racism, or a racist comment. "Derogatory comment", "bad taste"... people, she made a racist tweet. You don't do that, especially if you're a public figure. Unless you're willing to live with the repercussions.

And Disney lost the ad money. Real money. "_won't really hurt Disney at all_" is not true. There was some serious advertising money coming their way. Except every advertiser on earth would run the other way. So yeah, in that sense, you are right... this decision was easy. 

I don't deny her right to say what she wants. But no one else has to put up with it.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

realityboy said:


> It's still a long shot, but maybe without Roseanne.
> 
> Can 'Roseanne' Continue Without Its Star? "Possible But Not Probable"


Would be great for the cast and crew if they can make it work without Roseanne Barr being involved at all.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

BrettStah said:


> Look at this news:
> The Middle Spinoff Starring Eden Sher in the Works at ABC
> 
> That's going to be a lot of jobs due to it being picked up. Probably offsets roughly the jobs lost by Roseanne's cancellation.


Or, it potentially continues the jobs from "The Middle," which just ended.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

BrettStah said:


> Would be great for the cast and crew if they can make it work without Roseanne Barr being involved at all.


And talk about a teachable moment.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

"The makers of Ambien, a sleep aid, immediately pushed back on Ms. Barr’s excuse."

“People of all races, religions and nationalities work at Sanofi every day to improve the lives of people around the world,” the company, Sanofi U.S., said on Twitter. “While all pharmaceutical treatments have side effects, racism is not a known side effect of any Sanofi medication.”


----------



## MLR930 (Dec 26, 2002)

Jesse Tyler Ferguson from Modern Family tweeted this last night


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

ew.com has an article on the cancellation and it's more costly than most people think. ABC renewed the show for 13 more episodes and the actors signed a contract with Carsey-Warner for 13 more episodes. The actors have to get paid weather they film the shows or not. ABC may also have to pay a hefty cancellation fee. Ew (Entertainment Weekly) says there is consideration of using the cast members in a similar show with a different name, such as Bonners instead of Conners. But that's just speculation at this point.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Any comments from Goodman?
I haven't seen any from him.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Tony_T said:


> Any comments from Goodman?
> I haven't seen any from him.


Or from Laurie Metcalf. In the past, they each were free but judicious in their comments.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)




----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

smbaker said:


> Is it ABC's responsibility to punish Roseanne Barr, or is it ABC's responsibility to broadcast television for profit? Do you know that she would have continued to earn money from the show in her absence? Maybe her contract was written in such a way that she could be fired for cause, perhaps (knowing her history) even for specific named causes, and lose her right to future earnings.


As you correctly say we don't know - but knowing her history if there wasn't a tight morality clause in her contract I think the overseeing ABC executive should be fired.

A good example of a show continuing after its star was fired for grossly bad moral misbehavior is House of Cards. In addition to being the star Kevin Spacey was listed as executive producer. I am left wondering if directly or indirectly Kevin Spacey has earnings because the show continues without him.

(what executive producer can mean is a can of worms)


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

Tony_T said:


> "The makers of Ambien, a sleep aid, immediately pushed back on Ms. Barr's excuse."
> 
> "People of all races, religions and nationalities work at Sanofi every day to improve the lives of people around the world," the company, Sanofi U.S., said on Twitter. "While all pharmaceutical treatments have side effects, racism is not a known side effect of any Sanofi medication."


I am not denying Roseanne Barr is a racist, if I were speculating I would say *if* drugs were responsible for her erratic abnormal thoughts it would be because of a combination of drugs.

But I think that Sanofi U.S tweet is playing with words in a way that could be misleading.

From a quick look:
Unlikely but serious side effects of Ambien include:
mental/mood/behavior changes (such as new or worsening depression, *abnormal thoughts*, thoughts of suicide, hallucinations, confusion, agitation, aggressive behavior, or anxiety) >
Common Side Effects of Ambien (Zolpidem Tartrate) Drug Center - RxList


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

Thoughts != Actions.


----------



## pgogborn (Nov 11, 2002)

pdhenry said:


> Thoughts != Actions.


Abnormal Thoughts + Agitation + Aggressive behavior == Abnormal Actions.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

pdhenry said:


> Thoughts != Actions.


Thoughts -> Twitter = Action


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

pgogborn said:


> I am not denying Roseanne Barr is a racist, if I were speculating I would say *if* drugs were responsible for her erratic abnormal thoughts it would be because of a combination of drugs.
> 
> But I think that Sanofi U.S tweet is playing with words in a way that could be misleading.
> 
> ...


She's talked about being a heavy marijuana user.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Adam1115 said:


> She's talked about being a heavy marijuana user.


Yeah, but that doesn't turn you into a crazy racist. It usually leaves you in a mellow mood.

Or, so I'm told.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

RGM1138 said:


> Yeah, but that doesn't turn you into a crazy racist. It usually leaves you in a mellow mood.
> 
> Or, so I'm told.


It definately doesn't cause the racism, but the poor judgement. I'm saying she may have been mixing marijuana, ambien, and who knows what else.

I mixed vicodin, muscle relaxers, and Marijuana once (accidentally). I thought I was going to die.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Adam1115 said:


> I mixed vicodin, muscle relaxers, and Marijuana once (accidentally). I thought I was going to die.


One person's thought I was gonna die is another person's good time.


----------



## nickels (Jan 11, 2010)

Just for comparison, I have "scientifically" tested drugs in my youth. I also have gotten black-out drunk a time or two. I mixed marijuana with countless things. You know how many times I went on a racist rant while I was out of control? ZERO. Know why, because deep down I am not a hate filled racist. Roseanne is much like Mel Gibson in that they are racists at their core, but they try to keep those beliefs hidden from the public. Well, for Roseanne, barely. When their inhibitions are loosened up and have their internal walls removed, the ugly truth hiding below the surface is revealed. Drugs or alcohol are not making them say these things, they just remove the filter that usually keeps those terrible thoughts from coming out.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

_In vino veritas_


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Adam1115 said:


> It definately doesn't cause the racism, but the poor judgement. I'm saying she may have been mixing marijuana, ambien, and who knows what else.
> 
> I mixed vicodin, muscle relaxers, and Marijuana once (accidentally). I thought I was going to die.


I'm glad it was an accident. 

I see what you're saying. Yeah, I've been reading a little bit about Ms Barr. She's apparently had mental health issues for years. I honestly don't know if she's racist or in a really bad mental state.

And I'm no psychiatrist, but I imagine a condition like that can cause you to do and say things that a person not hampered by those set of circumstances normally wouldn't.

I'm not excusing her rants, just saying there may reasons behind them other than naked racism.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

And so now, she seems to have tweeted that the Democratic Party has been anti-Semitic to her:


> I'm not sure, but I think I spent the last 24 hours watching the party of inclusion, diversity, understanding, and acceptance, lynch a Jew.


Dang, she needs to stop taking that Ambien.

There seems to be a refrain, here: no one is simply a person, and she can't simply talk about them (including herself) that way. Instead, they're Democrats or Jews or apes, and that's why they are what they are and do what they do. Not because they're just people.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

pgogborn said:


> A good example of a show continuing after its star was fired for grossly bad moral misbehavior is House of Cards.


Might have been a little more difficult had it been named "Spacey's House" and been based on Spacey playing essentially himself. (Maybe it was, I never watched)

We're talking about effectively renaming "_Seinfeld_" the "_Kramer, George, and Elaine Show_". Is it doable? Maybe, but the whole premise was based on the Seinfeld character and built around him. It's a tall order.



pgogborn said:


> I am left wondering if directly or indirectly Kevin Spacey has earnings because the show continues without him.


So what if he does? Other than some amount of money being siphoned off profits paying for an employee who isn't used, what responsibility does a network about its former talent? If there is to be punitive action taken, that falls to the justice system (if a crime may have been committed, in the case of Spacey) or the public (if a crime may not have been committed but the behavior is immoral).


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

heySkippy said:


> One person's thought I was gonna die is another person's good time.


Oh I'm all for a good time. That was not.


----------



## bigpuma (Aug 12, 2003)

smbaker said:


> Might have been a little more difficult had it been named "Spacey's House" and been based on Spacey playing essentially himself. (Maybe it was, I never watched)
> 
> We're talking about effectively renaming "_Seinfeld_" the "_Kramer, George, and Elaine Show_". Is it doable? Maybe, but the whole premise was based on the Seinfeld character and built around him. It's a tall order.


You mean like if you had a show called Valerie or Valerie's family and decided to get rid of the actress playing Valerie?

They could call the new show "The Conner Family."


----------



## John Gillespie (Oct 27, 2016)

Adam1115 said:


> It definately doesn't cause the racism, but the poor judgement. I'm saying she may have been mixing marijuana, ambien, and who knows what else...


I'm gonna guess tiger blood.


----------



## smbaker (May 24, 2003)

bigpuma said:


> You mean like if you had a show called Valerie or Valerie's family and decided to get rid of the actress playing Valerie?


Because it worked there, doesn't mean it's going to work here. We're talking very different actresses, with very different shows built around them.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

I forget if this has been posted here yet.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

An op ed that ran in the NY Times two weeks ago about the show Roseanne.
Opinion | It's Roseanne's America, Not Trump's


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

He may turn out to be correct, but he got the wrong Roseanne

-smak-


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

ARGH, I'm glad I downloaded the episodes.. (When a show is on Hulu(*), I have been downloading the episodes off my Tivo to make space, and then delete them one by one as I watch them.. Yes, my Tivos are often so full that I do this... Though I got down to 98% recently.. then American Ninja Warrior & the other NBC premiere last night took up tons of space.. watched most of the former then fell asleep)

(*) As Roseanne was until Hulu pulled it. I will still watch the eps at some point, I thought via Hulu after I caught up with the various dramas I was watching.


----------



## nickels (Jan 11, 2010)

Not trying to get too political, but I am wondering what is the consensus here? Is calling a white woman the C word as bad as comparing a black woman to an ape? I do not think they are in the same ballpark. One is mean while the other is racist. It seems that people are now trying to make these events seem equal, calling the network hypocrites in the way they have responded to each case. Racism is way, way, way, wayyyyy worse than name calling IMO.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

nickels said:


> Not trying to get too political, but I am wondering what is the consensus here? Is calling a white woman the C word as bad as comparing a black woman to an ape? I do not think they are in the same ballpark. One is mean while the other is racist. It seems that people are now trying to make these events seem equal, calling the network hypocrites in the way they have responded to each case. Racism is way, way, way, wayyyyy worse than name calling IMO.


I look at it this way. Samantha Bee would have been a footnote if it weren't for Roseanne. Reverse the order and Bee barely makes a headline. They are both bad and acceptability changes with the times but as we stand now, the racist remarks "cross the aisle" as we've seen even Fox News denounce them. If the Bee comments happened without Roseanne, you'd have a small squabble that would pass over.

In that sense, a woman calling another woman the c word is not in the same ballpark as the racist comments. Largely because one is personal and the other is general. At least as society judges the today. And society wins.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

astrohip said:


> You keep bringing up this same point, so I'll keep pointing out how I believe you are wrong.
> 
> She will never work in Hollywood again. Never. She burnt a bridge that can't be rebuilt. There's not enough time left in her life to overcome this. She's finished.
> 
> ....


????
If Mel Gibson can come back then so can Roseanne Barr.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Exactly. Thought experiment that proves it... A white guy is annoyed at another customer who happens to be black in line to check out at a grocery store. The white guy is a hothead who spouts his thoughts often. What would be worse - if he called the other customer


aaronwt said:


> ????
> If Mel Gibson can come back then so can Roseanne Barr.


Yeah, she may not get another network TV series, but there are so many examples of people who have said/done horrible things who have eventually resumed with a career, that those that _don't_ are the exception.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

pgogborn said:


> As you correctly say we don't know - but knowing her history if there wasn't a tight morality clause in her contract I think the overseeing ABC executive should be fired.
> 
> A good example of a show continuing after its star was fired for grossly bad moral misbehavior is House of Cards. In addition to being the star Kevin Spacey was listed as executive producer. I am left wondering if directly or indirectly Kevin Spacey has earnings because the show continues without him.
> 
> (what executive producer can mean is a can of worms)


The show will just limp into it's final season. With only six episodes. It's barely going to continue without Spacey.

I know I am not looking forward to the final season of House of Cards any more. Not since they dumped Spacey. And that was my favorite Netflix show. I would binge an entire season in a day or two.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> ????
> If Mel Gibson can come back then so can Roseanne Barr.


Mel Gibson had much more good will (& talent) before his issues.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

RGM1138 said:


> Yeah, but that doesn't turn you into a crazy racist. It usually leaves you in a mellow mood.
> 
> Or, so I'm told.


It affects different people in different ways. Some people get mellow, some get very aggressive, some get paranoid etc.. I saw reactions all over the place from people. Just like with alcohol.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

nickels said:


> Not trying to get too political, but I am wondering what is the consensus here? Is calling a white woman the C word as bad as comparing a black woman to an ape? I do not think they are in the same ballpark. One is mean while the other is racist. It seems that people are now trying to make these events seem equal, calling the network hypocrites in the way they have responded to each case. Racism is way, way, way, wayyyyy worse than name calling IMO.


I thought she compared her to a fictional character from the 21st century movie, Planet of the Apes? Not an actual Ape?


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

aaronwt said:


> I thought she compared her to a fictional character from the 21st century movie, Planet of the Apes? Not an actual Ape?


Well that's a distinction without a difference except for the folks trying to pretend she wasn't racist.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

I am not taking sides on any of this but the one main issue with Roseanne's tweet is it was taken out of context. What she did was reply to a series of tweets that started from an individual tweeting about "Spy Gate". That individual has a YouTube page on these various conspiracies. Then there was about 4 tweets from individuals blaming Obama and then Jarret for the spying.
Roseanne then made her tweet and it also included a picture with Jarret on the left and the female character ape from the new movie of the Planet of the Apes. I seen the picture only once as it was removed and then those that tweeted before Roseanne then deleted their tweets or someone deleted them. This then left only Roseanne's tweet.
Roseanne did the same thing that Bill Maher done with his New Rules a few years ago when he showed Trump on one side and an orangutan on the other. Unfortunately those people now are saying there is bias against Roseanne as it is ok for Bill Maher to do this but not Roseanne.

I think these was the two pictures that was posted but got removed as I only seen them once.
valerie jarrett - Bing images
female mother on planet of the apes - Bing images

I do not have any social media accounts at all and I don't follow any one on these sites but I followed a link from one of the numerous news sites that were linking to Roseanne's twitter page. I think Roseanne's biggest problem is she should stay away from the conspiracy sites as she seems to be to caught up with them. I also want to note that I watch Bill Maher since when he was actually on ABC with Politically Incorrect.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

aaronwt said:


> The show will just limp into it's final season. With only six episodes.


Eight episodes. And it could be a great season - sometimes being forced to deal with a drastic change can lead to good things.


----------



## dwatt (Jan 11, 2007)

realityboy said:


> Mel Gibson had much more good will (& talent) before his issues.


That and he is 4 years younger than her and his transgressions were when he was much younger. How long did it take for him to get back in? Will she live long enough to wait out exile?


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Jed1 said:


> I am not taking sides on any of this


This is sad to hear.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

nickels said:


> Not trying to get too political, but I am wondering what is the consensus here? Is calling a white woman the C word as bad as comparing a black woman to an ape? I do not think they are in the same ballpark. One is mean while the other is racist. It seems that people are now trying to make these events seem equal, calling the network hypocrites in the way they have responded to each case. Racism is way, way, way, wayyyyy worse than name calling IMO.


I don't like the word being used by anyone, but I almost saw the instance here as like one black person using the "N-word" with another black person. And I agree with you otherwise, that mean-ness is a different thing from racism.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

aaronwt said:


> I thought she compared her to a fictional character from the 21st century movie, Planet of the Apes? Not an actual Ape?


She did. There was a picture that went with her tweet but it got removed along with the other posts that came before her tweet. She did the same thing Bill Maher did with Trump and the orangutan. Her big problem is being caught up in these conspiracy theories. It has been a decade now that the idea that the previous president was a Muslim even though he is not.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

dwatt said:


> That and he is 4 years younger than her and his transgressions were when he was much younger. How long did it take for him to get back in? Will she live long enough to wait out exile?


He also worked his way back in quietly via directing and other aspects. Gibson is much more talented than Roseanne and has more opportunities. Her opportunities are limited to being Roseanne and nobody will want Roseanne.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> He also worked his way back in quietly via directing and other aspects. Gibson is much more talented than Roseanne and has more opportunities. Her opportunities are limited to being Roseanne and nobody will want Roseanne.


Based on what I've seen on Facebook and nextdoor, she will have a willing audience if she wanted to go on tour, start a podcast, etc. She could make money if she wanted to, in other words.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

BrettStah said:


> Based on what I've seen on Facebook and nextdoor, she will have a willing audience if she wanted to go on tour, start a podcast, etc. She could make money if she wanted to, in other words.


Sure. Cosby still did shows after he was accused. O'reilly still has followers. But she won't get network type gigs. But she is getting old and has been lazy for decades. It's where she started (standup and tours) but she hasn't done that for quite some time.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> Sure. Cosby still did shows after he was accused. O'reilly still has followers. But she won't get network type gigs. But she is getting old and has been lazy for decades. It's where she started (standup and tours) but she hasn't done that for quite some time.


Yep, I agree - I don't think any other big network is going to give her a primetime TV series, but that doesn't rule out other ways she could (if she wanted to) earn money in the broader entertainment industry. Gilbert Gottfried, Pee Wee Herman, plus many others have all done so. I expect Louis C.K. to make a re-appearance in the public eye in the next year or so, and he'll be able to make money on tour, maybe eventually a return to basic cable, etc.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

It could happen if she wants it to. She needs the time and energy which she may not have due to her age and she has shown no ability to keep it under control long enough to make a quiet comeback.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> Sure. Cosby still did shows after he was accused. O'reilly still has followers. But she won't get network type gigs. But she is getting old and has been lazy for decades. It's where she started (standup and tours) but she hasn't done that for quite some time.


As best I can tell, she wasn't getting network-type gigs since the original "Roseanne" went off the air--hence, the attractiveness of the re-boot.

Roseanne is no Connie Britton.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

TonyD79 said:


> It could happen if she wants it to. She needs the time and energy which she may not have due to her age and she has shown no ability to keep it under control long enough to make a quiet comeback.


Another shot at a primetime network series? Very, very doubtful.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

ABC considering a version of 'Roseanne' without Roseanne Barr


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Jed1 said:


> I
> Roseanne did the same thing that Bill Maher done with his New Rules a few years ago when he showed Trump on one side and an orangutan on the other. Unfortunately those people now are saying there is bias against Roseanne as it is ok for Bill Maher to do this but not Roseanne.


False equivalency alert.
(I realize that you are not the one saying it but I've seen it elsewhere on Social media.)

The reason Trump gets compared to an orangutan is because of that ridiculous orange tinted spray tan he's decided to use. 
In other words, he made a choice to look like that.
(And yes, it's rather rude.)

Jarret and other African-Americans are often referred to apes _because of_ their racial background.
How many times have African-American heard "Go back to Africa"?
They were long considered sub-human because their ancestors came from "the Jungle".


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

"Darlene"?

'Roseanne' reboot centered around Sara Gilbert being considered: Report


> We may not have seen the last of "Roseanne" after all.
> 
> A new report from TMZ claims that production executives are "exploring the possibility of re-branding the show and focusing on the character Darlene instead of Roseanne." Sara Gilbert, who plays Darlene, has even been calling fellow cast members to gauge their interest.
> 
> ...


Sara Gilbert is hungry.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

JYoung said:


> False equivalency alert.
> (I realize that you are not the one saying it but I've seen it elsewhere on Social media.)
> 
> The reason Trump gets compared to an orangutan is because of that ridiculous orange tinted spray tan he's decided to use.
> ...


Actually black people are not the only group of people that have been called apes. Where I live Irish Catholics were always characterized this way by the ruling class which was the English. The term drunken monkey is even used today as a disparaging remark about the Irish.
Irish Apes: Tactics of De-Humanization - Sociological Images


> Being compared to apes is tactic of oppression totally unrelated to skin color - that is, it has nothing to do with Black people and everything to do with the effort to exert control and power.


And just like many blacks in the south 20 Irish miners were hung for crimes they never committed. This is known here as the Day of the Rope.
21st June 1877 - the Molly Maguires' Day of the Rope
My mother is still alive and has witnessed Help Wanted Irish need not apply in the windows of Jewish and English shop owners in this area right through the end of WW2 and into the early 1950s.
The tactic to treat people as sub human has been done repeatably by the white Imperial colonial powers of Europe for many centuries. This reached its pinnacle at the end of WW1 when England and Frances colonial empires reached its peak. These empires started to collapse with the end of WW2 and America then became the care taker of these colonial empires in order to keep the flow of raw materials to the western democracies in order to keep their economies going. Of course most of these places have gained control of their independence since the 1950s and I believe this is why some whites want that time period to return.

I really don't think Roseannne had this in mind with her tweet but I do understand why people are sensitive to this. There is those that push these conspiracy theories that are racist and have the desire to control and oppress those that they think are lesser than themselves.

Also there is those on the other side of this issue that use some type of holier than thou attitude and practice some oppressive type of superiority, political correctness, that they are purer than others. George Carlin tackled this about 20 years ago.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Jed1 said:


> I am not taking sides on any of this but the one main issue with Roseanne's tweet is it was taken out of context. What she did was reply to a series of tweets that started from an individual tweeting about "Spy Gate". That individual has a YouTube page on these various conspiracies. Then there was about 4 tweets from individuals blaming Obama and then Jarret for the spying.
> Roseanne then made her tweet and it also included a picture with Jarret on the left and the female character ape from the new movie of the Planet of the Apes. I seen the picture only once as it was removed and then those that tweeted before Roseanne then deleted their tweets or someone deleted them. This then left only Roseanne's tweet.
> Roseanne did the same thing that Bill Maher done with his New Rules a few years ago when he showed Trump on one side and an orangutan on the other. Unfortunately those people now are saying there is bias against Roseanne as it is ok for Bill Maher to do this but not Roseanne.
> 
> ...


This is all nonsense.

Posting a picture of Trump alongside an orangutan vs Valerie Jarrett is so not the same, that it's shocking you'd even post this.

And we don't know the context becuause Roseanne was really responding to a picture of VJ next an ape, and her tweet only looks bad without that context?

-smak-


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Jed1 said:


> Actually black people are not the only group of people that have been called apes. Where I live Irish Catholics were always characterized this way by the ruling class which was the English. The term drunken monkey is even used today as a disparaging remark about the Irish.
> Irish Apes: Tactics of De-Humanization - Sociological Images
> 
> And just like many blacks in the south 20 Irish miners were hung for crimes they never committed. This is known here as the Day of the Rope.
> ...


You need to join Roseanne very far away from the internet.

-smak-


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

BrettStah said:


> Well that's a distinction without a difference except for the folks trying to pretend she wasn't racist.


Are you saying nobody will ever be able to compare another person to an ape, without it being racist, if the person being compared happens to be black? That's a serious question.

(I think Trump himself has said far worse things than Roseanne has -- and I even agree with the same side as him if not for the same underlying reasons, on some of the controversial issues like illegal immigration.... though I do think he should be impeached for his Russia impeding... and his pardons have been evil too.)


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

mattack said:


> Are you saying nobody will ever be able to compare another person to an ape, without it being racist, if the person being compared happens to be black? That's a serious question.
> 
> (I think Trump himself has said far worse things than Roseanne has -- and I even agree with the same side as him if not for the same underlying reasons, on some of the controversial issues like illegal immigration.... though I do think he should be impeached for his Russia impeding... and his pardons have been evil too.)


No, you can not compare black people to apes without being racist.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Never, ever? Not in 10000 years?

That's pretty ridiculous.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

mattack said:


> Never, ever? Not in 10000 years?
> 
> That's pretty ridiculous.


Try it.

-smak-


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

Mikeguy said:


> "Darlene"?
> 
> 'Roseanne' reboot centered around Sara Gilbert being considered: Report
> 
> Sara Gilbert is hungry.


Yuck, I can take Darlene in small doses, but a whole show centering on her would not be one I'd watch. She's not one of my favorite characters. I'd watch a show similar to Roseanne, with Dan as the main character whose wife died. But not centered around Darlene (nor Becky, though I haven't seen that mentioned as an option.)


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

mattack said:


> Are you saying nobody will ever be able to compare another person to an ape, without it being racist, if the person being compared happens to be black? That's a serious question.


Yes.

It may not always be fair but that's the way it is. Deride the person in a way that is not associated with a racist position for them, and you are okay. An example. The term "***** in the armor" has nothing to do with Chinese but it is completely wrong to use it even if the Chinese American guy is the worst guy in your jousting team.

Another one. A minor league baseball team I have season tickets to used to have a family put up a K sign for each strikeout. And they'd show the family on the video board. One night, it was a family of three. All black and all holding up a K sign. Totally accidental but the guy who missed it got chastised for having a black family holding up KKK.

It is part of being part of a society. Be sensitive and you don't have to be overly sensitive.


----------



## ct1 (Jun 27, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> It is part of being part of a society. Be sensitive and you don't have to be overly sensitive.


In programming protocol interfaces, developers use the Robustness Principle.

_Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others._

I try to apply that principle to my interfaces in society too.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

nickels said:


> Not trying to get too political, but I am wondering what is the consensus here? Is calling a white woman the C word as bad as comparing a black woman to an ape? I do not think they are in the same ballpark. One is mean while the other is racist. It seems that people are now trying to make these events seem equal, calling the network hypocrites in the way they have responded to each case. Racism is way, way, way, wayyyyy worse than name calling IMO.


It's not a comparison, if she loses her advertisers, she loses her show.

But talk about the pot calling the kettle a ****.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

John Gillespie said:


> Rosie O'Donnell


More age appropriate and would piss off Trump. :up:


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Mikeguy said:


> Sara Gilbert is hungry.


She's an executive producer for the cancelled show so she's just doing her job. She's the one who got the band back together to begin with. That said, I don't think she can carry her own show - the supporting cast would have to be really freaking great, better than it currently is. Then again, I never expected Roseanne would be able to carry her own show. "Darlene" would get good ratings at first just from people curiously looking in at the aftermath of Roseanne's crash & burn but ratings probably wouldn't be sustainable.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Sara Gilbert is not that good of an actress and Darlene is not that interesting of a character. 
I would still watch but - there was another new sitcom (I forget the name already) this season where Gilbert was a supporting character and at first I was like OH - Sara Gilbert! and then after a few episodes I was bored.

I still cannot reconcile the Roseanne who created ground breaking television and tackled middle class and liberal issues with the person she is today. 

The reboot was like comfort food for me. I was somehow able to de-compartmentalize the show from the woman and am completely bummed it was cancelled.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

Cainebj said:


> Sara Gilbert is not that good of an actress and Darlene is not that interesting of a character.
> I would still watch but - there was another new sitcom (I forget the name already) this season where Gilbert was a supporting character and at first I was like OH - Sara Gilbert! and then after a few episodes I was bored.


Living Biblically.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

series5orpremier said:


> She's an executive producer for the cancelled show so she's just doing her job. She's the one who got the band back together to begin with. That said, I don't think she can carry her own show - the supporting cast would have to be really freaking great, better than it currently is. Then again, I never expected Roseanne would be able to carry her own show. "Darlene" would get good ratings at first just from people curiously looking in at the aftermath of Roseanne's crash & burn but ratings probably wouldn't be sustainable.


Yep, I know that SG is a producer on the show, and she was/is a major driving force behind it. Also, though, I think that she knows that the show is a livelihood for her. I enjoyed her performances as Darlene--a combination of the show, the writing, and her--and don't know that she has had such success outside of that role; I've seen her in other roles and, frankly (and not meant pejoratively), I'm not sure of how good an actress she might be outside of the earlier Darlene role. My guess is that she has seen the re-boot as a way to gain some success and, no doubt, nice $ again (apart from her other work on the daytime talk show "The Talk," as both producer and host).


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

BrettStah said:


> Yep, I agree - I don't think any other big network is going to give her a primetime TV series, but that doesn't rule out other ways she could (if she wanted to) earn money in the broader entertainment industry. Gilbert Gottfried, Pee Wee Herman, plus many others have all done so. I expect Louis C.K. to make a re-appearance in the public eye in the next year or so, and he'll be able to make money on tour, maybe eventually a return to basic cable, etc.


I've been wondering if they killed 'Better Things' after the Louis C.K. reveals. He doesn't act in it, but is a major part of the show behind the scenes, along with Pamela Adlon. I'd hate to see it go.


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

sharkster said:


> I've been wondering if they killed 'Better Things' after the Louis C.K. reveals. He doesn't act in it, but is a major part of the show behind the scenes, along with Pamela Adlon. I'd hate to see it go.


I believe it has been renewed for a third season, but CK won't be involved in the writing and will no longer have a producer credit on the show.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

getbak said:


> I believe it has been renewed for a third season, but CK won't be involved in the writing and will no longer have a producer credit on the show.


Oh yay!  Thanks for that info.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Just read about this in the NYT.
How does she still have a job?
Joy Reid, MSNBC Host, Apologizes Again as More Incendiary Blog Posts Surface


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Tony_T said:


> Just read about this in the NYT.
> How does she still have a job?
> Joy Reid, MSNBC Host, Apologizes Again as More Incendiary Blog Posts Surface


Lots of times people, including Roseanne (prior to this latest incident), Mel Gibson, Pee Wee Herman, Marv Albert, etc., are not sent off to a life of solitude forever. People (sometimes) change, and people (sometimes) forgive (eventually).

In Joy Reid's case, so far everything controversial is from quite awhile ago, and much like Roseanne's old controversies didn't stop her from getting her TV show brought back to life, so far MSNBC thinks Joy Reid is a different person in some important ways than she used to be. Time will tell if they are correct, or incorrect (as ABC was about Roseanne).

I know quite a few people who have evolved positions today than they had in the past, including myself. Long ago I thought same-sex marriage was a crazy idea that was dumb to push for.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

While the posts were 'old', she did lie about it only 3 months ago by denying that she wrote it and blamed it on hackers (and has since _sort of*_ admitted that she made the posts)
She should be fired for the lie.

*_"I genuinely do not believe I wrote those hateful things, because they are completely alien to me," she said on her morning show. "But I can definitely understand, based on things I have tweeted and have written in the past, why some people don't believe me."_


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

This was the picture that was on Roseanne's Twitter page. This is not the actual picture as the one on her page had no writing on it so I guess this person copied it and added the captions.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeZVhg8U0AAfNCR.jpg
I seen this picture on her page when the news was first breaking that Disney was cancelling the show and I followed a link to her page and it was there. I left the page and then came back about a half hour later and the picture was removed. So was a number of tweets as Roseanne complained why people was removing their tweets and this would make her look bad. Some one also tweeted about the picture missing so someone reposted the picture but that also got removed shortly after.

This story shows some of the post from the original tweet from SGTreport and some replies and then Roseanne's tweet. There was some time that elapsed from the original tweet and her tweet. Roseanne was also tweeting some things about Chelsea Clinton and Chelsea had to correct her.
Roseanne goes full conspiracy theorist on Chelsea Clinton
This post shows one of the tweets about VJ was removed which was right before Roseanne's tweet.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeXqLmgVwAAVc2i.jpg

As of today all of the tweets from this incident and other incidents have been scrubbed from her twitter page. It is a real shame that she has gotten mixed up with these conspiracy theories.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Tony_T said:


> While the posts were 'old', she did lie about it only 3 months ago by denying that she wrote it and blamed it on hackers (and has since _sort of*_ admitted that she made the posts)
> She should be fired for the lie.
> 
> *_"I genuinely do not believe I wrote those hateful things, because they are completely alien to me," she said on her morning show. "But I can definitely understand, based on things I have tweeted and have written in the past, why some people don't believe me."_


I honestly didn't believe her three months ago. It just seemed like an odd thing for a hacker to do, but it also seemed odd to make up such a lie. She's not really a headline grabber like Roseanne or Bee so I doubt this'll break into the headline cycle.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Weiner also first claimed his account was hacked. He's not making any comeback

Anyway Joy Reid's post 'promoting a Sept. 11 conspiracy by suggesting that readers watch “Loose Change,” which posits that the attack was planned by the United States government' is enough for me to want her to be fired.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

sharkster said:


> I've been wondering if they killed 'Better Things' after the Louis C.K. reveals. He doesn't act in it, but is a major part of the show behind the scenes, along with Pamela Adlon. I'd hate to see it go.


Pamela Adlon was on Jimmy Kimmel just last week - it's definitely coming back. 
I was concerned also that it was going to get the ax because of CK.


----------



## Anthjo (Aug 7, 2007)

Tony_T said:


> Weiner also first claimed his account was hacked. He's not making any comeback
> 
> Anyway Joy Reid's post 'promoting a Sept. 11 conspiracy by suggesting that readers watch "Loose Change," which posits that the attack was planned by the United States government' is enough for me to want her to be fired.


Have you seen all the crazy stuff that Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro traffic in on a nightly basis? Look, we get it. You obviously don't like Joy Reid. That doesn't mean she should be fired because of her evolving positions on something she said over a decade ago. I'm gay and didn't find what she said offensive. Context matters. Also, there's obviously a pattern of Joy Reid becoming a fierce advocate for oppressed communities. Ms. Reid has become a true ally for people of color as well as those in the LGBTQ community while Roseanne is.....well, she's still Roseanne.

Making a historically racist and grossly inappropriate correlation between a person of color and an ape is not a joke. It's classic textbook racism, not to mention vile and disgusting. C'mon man. It's 2018. We've got to do better. It should also be noted that this isn't the first time Roseanne has said something offensive. She's been taking shots at other prominent black folks for some time now.

For what it's worth, Anthony Weiner is a total POS and deserved everything bad that has transpired as a result. There's a huge difference between a TV pundit and a (then) elected official. Surely you know that.


----------



## vman41 (Jun 18, 2002)

Jed1 said:


> The tactic to treat people as sub human has been done repeatably by the white Imperial colonial powers of Europe for many centuries. This reached its pinnacle at the end of WW1 when England and Frances colonial empires reached its peak.


I read _The Island of Dr. Moreau_ a few years ago and it seemed to me to be a racist allegory on European colonialism. In the book, Moreau's goal was to make beasts into humans (i.e. make the savages like the civilized whites). The savage nature of the beasts win out, however, and they revolt. The humans that survived only escaped death by fleeing the Island.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Anthjo said:


> There's a huge difference between a TV pundit and a (then) elected official. Surely you know that.


I never compared Joy Reid's past comments to anyone else (only mentioned Weiner because he made the same sorry excuse about being hacked). Saying she's not as _bad_ as this one or that one does not condone her behavior. I don't think her opinions _evolved,_ I believe she keeps her inappropriate comments to herself now. It's worse that she lied and denied - for that alone she should have been fired.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

I bet there are lots of longtime posters here, including me, who would disagree with at least some of their old posts, AND potentially not remember posting it. So to me it isn't crazy that she doesn't recall making every post on her old blog.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

BrettStah said:


> I bet there are lots of longtime posters here, including me, who would disagree with at least some of their old posts, AND potentially not remember posting it. So to me it isn't crazy that she doesn't recall making every post on her old blog.


Yikes, that's true. I sometimes see something posted, maybe 6 months ago, and think, hey, that's reasonably coherent. And I'm shocked to realize that I wrote it.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

BrettStah said:


> I bet there are lots of longtime posters here, including me, who would disagree with at least some of their old posts, AND potentially not remember posting it. So to me it isn't crazy that she doesn't recall making every post on her old blog.


Well, it's not like she did not remember that she blogged that she had pizza on a certain day in 2008  She _originally_ said that someone "manipulated material from my now-defunct blog, The Reid Report, to include offensive and hateful references that are fabricated and run counter to my personal beliefs and ideology," 
And it was more than one inappropriate comment on her blog.

Its the "lie and deny" that bothers me. How could someone believe anything she says now?


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

I'm not sure exactly how I feel on the Joy Reid thing. I've been uncomfortable about it, ever since, but I have a strong feeling that a lot of her prior feelings on the subject were due to her religious upbringing. I've heard myself, from christian people, that gay people are evil, along with the usual 'going to hell' thing. I feel like maybe it took her a while to break out of that. Some people never do.

I'm not trying to make excuses. Like I said, I still feel a little uncomfortable for I truly think that that kind of thinking had that exact origin and, if so, I am glad she evolved beyond such horrible thinking. I'm honestly still trying to work past it because I've never had those kind of feelings and it's hard for me to truly understand people going with those horrid lines of thinking about others. Granted, I'm 100% non-religious, but I grew up with that religion and saw stuff that I still see today, which is probably one of a thousand reasons I never wanted to be a part of it.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

vman41 said:


> I read _The Island of Dr. Moreau_ a few years ago and it seemed to me to be a racist allegory on European colonialism. In the book, Moreau's goal was to make beasts into humans (i.e. make the savages like the civilized whites). The savage nature of the beasts win out, however, and they revolt. The humans that survived only escaped death by fleeing the Island.


Yes that is the classic method used by the Imperial Colonial powers but in the real world the Colonialist did not flee they just used their powerful military forces to beat the native people into submission. The native were always looked upon to be sub human and not equal to the European Imperial powers. This was shown in Ken Burns show on Vietnam on how the French used it power to conquer and force the indigenous people to do their bidding.


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

I seen a segment this morning as to why Samantha B did not get her show cancelled and Roseanne did. This is something I mentioned the other day as Disney makes the most of its money from its theme parks and not network programming. TBS is owned by Time Warner and has a different demographic than Disney. They also stated if Roseanne was on a different network this may have not happened the way it did.
Even Bill Maher show Politically Incorrect was dropped by Disney over his statement about 9/11. Both Roseanne and Politically Incorrect was started by ABC when they were owned by Capital Cities. Roseanne was in it last season when Disney purchased Capital Cities and the ABC network. Bill Maher lasted about 5 years when Disney bought the network and I think Jimmy Kimmel replaced him in that late night slot. The main reason back then was Disney wanted Monday Night Football to move it over to their cable/sat channel ESPN.
Bill Maher is on a Time Warner's HBO and has been in trouble for saying things that got some people in an uproar but Time Warner did not get rid of him as those things did not affect his ratings and he also has no advertisers to deal with. It also was stated that at least one advertiser on SB time slot has dropped out so time will tell if her show will survive. Same goes for Joy Reid with Comcast and MSNBC. If there is no impact with their advertisers and the demographics that watch her show then nothing will happen to her. If there is a loss of advertisers than Comcast will have to make a decision to keep her or not.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Jed1 said:


> I seen a segment this morning as to why Samantha B did not get her show cancelled and Roseanne did. This is something I mentioned the other day as Disney makes the most of its money from its theme parks and not network programming. TBS is owned by Time Warner and has a different demographic than Disney. They also stated if Roseanne was on a different network this may have not happened the way it did.
> Even Bill Maher show Politically Incorrect was dropped by Disney over his statement about 9/11. Both Roseanne and Politically Incorrect was started by ABC when they were owned by Capital Cities. Roseanne was in it last season when Disney purchased Capital Cities and the ABC network. Bill Maher lasted about 5 years when Disney bought the network and I think Jimmy Kimmel replaced him in that late night slot. The main reason back then was Disney wanted Monday Night Football to move it over to their cable/sat channel ESPN.
> Bill Maher is on a Time Warner's HBO and has been in trouble for saying things that got some people in an uproar but Time Warner did not get rid of him as those things did not affect his ratings and he also has no advertisers to deal with. It also was stated that at least one advertiser on SB time slot has dropped out so time will tell if her show will survive. Same goes for Joy Reid with Comcast and MSNBC. If there is no impact with their advertisers and the demographics that watch her show then nothing will happen to her. If there is a loss of advertisers than Comcast will have to make a decision to keep her or not.


Samantha Bee's word was not live and was (I assume) approved for broadcast by TBS. While it happens, it's never a good look for a company to fire someone for something after giving permission.

Also ABC's head, Channing Dungey, is a black woman, and the first to hold such a position at a major network. It seems the canceling actually came from her as the head of ABC rather than from Disney. I was impressed by her swift reaction.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Clearly people have to take responsibility, and be held accountable, for their actions and words. But we do have to consider "what comes next". If people can't modify their positions and be given credit for that by the people who they now agree with what's the incentive for anyone to ever change their position on anything? They're considered traitors by the people they used to agree with, and not accepted by the people they now agree with, and accused as flip-floppers by everyone. That can't be a good way to handle things.

I don't know anything about Joy Reid but it seems unproductive to treat everyone as if they hadn't changed at all in 10 years. I absolutely agree that her initial response was not acceptable. When will people learn it's not the crime, it's the cover-up. Well, sometimes it's the crime . Whether or not she should be fired I don't know but if she is it should be for not acknowledging her past mistakes and trying to deflect blame, which harms her reputation as a journalist and even a pundit, and not for wrong opinions she held over a decade ago which she appears to have moved past.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

realityboy said:


> Samantha Bee's word was not live and was (I assume) approved for broadcast by TBS. While it happens, it's never a good look for a company to fire someone for something after giving permission.
> 
> Also ABC's head, Channing Dungey, is a black woman, and the first to hold such a position at a major network. It seems the canceling actually came from her as the head of ABC rather than from Disney. I was impressed by her swift reaction.


She called Bob Iger, and he agreed with cancelling the show.

-smak-


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

realityboy said:


> Samantha Bee's word was not live and was (I assume) approved for broadcast by TBS. While it happens, it's never a good look for a company to fire someone for something after giving permission.


It's amusing that some people have compared the two cases, and said that Roseanne was on her own time, not ABC's and Sam Bee's was "during work", and thus it's worse to do this sort of thing "during work"

When it's really the opposite. Sam Bee was doing it during a comedy bit, and went over the line in doing that comedy bit. Like so many have before.

Roseanne just was racist for no reason. That's why people are trying to make her tweet in to some sort of joke gone awry, when nobody can ever say what the joke was.

Everybody understands what Sam Bee was getting at, what the purpose of her joke was.

What was Roseanne's?

-smak-


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Regarding the word Bee said, any one here ever watch the Jim Jeffries show on Comedy Central?


----------



## Jed1 (Jun 18, 2013)

I have to admit that I did not understand what the tweet really was about that she made as I went by what the context the tweet was made in. In order to truly understand this the average lay person has to have a good working knowledge of the conspiracy theories that Roseanne is involved in.
When this news first broke I had no idea who VJ was as I never heard of her. Nobody on the news or those that wrote any of the articles that I read did a biography on her. They just mentioned her name and some also mentioned she worked for the Obama administration. When I clicked the link to Roseanne's twitter page I seen the series of post and the picture. From the posts I assumed the Muslim part was in reference to the old theory that Obama was a Muslim. And since the topic of conversation was about spy gate I assumed Jarret was working with the FBI or CIA. The picture reminded me of the one Bill Maher did with new rules so I assumed that this was a joke made in bad taste. Also to lay persons Jarrett is very fair skinned and I actually heard people say that she is white.

This morning I read an editorial in one of my local papers that went into detail of who Jarrett is and it mentioned she was born in Iran to African American parents and that her father was a doctor. They later moved back to the US and after Jarrett graduated from college she was working with the Daly administration in Chicago. In that position she hired Michele before she was married to Obama.
So now with that knowledge of the conspiracy theory it is now easy to see that this was a racist tweet since I know the back ground of Jarrett and her supposed ties to Obama. Also the conspiracy goes farther as they have Jarrett's father tied to the communist party back in the 50's and 60's. Also with Jarrett being born in Iran the Muslim Brother hood statement is aimed directly at her.
Most of the people I have talked to don't understand the conspiracy theory and are just looking at this as a bad joke. I think it would be best that the media should have explained who Jarrett was and the context of the tweets that dealt with the Spy gate conspiracy theory. Also most people, including myself, don't follow the lives of actors and actresses so most have no knowledge of what Roseanne was doing. The only thing I remember about Roseanne was what she done with the National Anthem at a baseball game many years ago.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

On today's talk show "The Talk," Sara Gilbert addressed the situation and stated that she is behind ABC's decision. (I had been wondering why this had not been addressed last week--turns out, last week's shows were pre-recorded shows.)


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

Mikeguy said:


> On today's talk show "The Talk," Sara Gilbert addressed the situation and stated that she is behind ABC's decision. (I had been wondering why this had not been addressed last week--turns out, last week's shows were pre-recorded shows.)


Oh darn! I was actually going to watch this and forgot. (I usually don't watch The Talk) I wanted to see what she had to say. Thanks for the info. I have Tivos. You'd think I would have just scheduled it - but I forgot that, too.  <--------- at self.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Mikeguy said:


> On today's talk show "The Talk," Sara Gilbert addressed the situation and stated that she is behind ABC's decision. (I had been wondering why this had not been addressed last week--turns out, last week's shows were pre-recorded shows.)


I found her statement annoying and self-serving. 
She also said Roseanne (the TV show) was always about diversity and inclusion. Well. Who created the show in the first place?


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Cainebj said:


> I found her statement annoying and self-serving.
> She also said Roseanne (the TV show) was always about diversity and inclusion. Well. Who created the show in the first place?


The same person who has now made multiple racist tweets?


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

When did Matt Williams make racist tweets?


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

sharkster said:


> Oh darn! I was actually going to watch this and forgot. (I usually don't watch The Talk) I wanted to see what she had to say. Thanks for the info. I have Tivos. You'd think I would have just scheduled it - but I forgot that, too.  <--------- at self.


You didn't miss much--if I recall, very little occurred apart from SG's comment--there was no, or only little, comment.


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

Tony_T said:


> Regarding the word Bee said, any one here ever watch the Jim Jeffries show on Comedy Central?


He's Australian. They use the C word like a comma down there.


----------



## dwatt (Jan 11, 2007)

getbak said:


> He's Australian. They use the C word like a comma down there.


You mean inappropriately where a semi colon would have been more appropriate.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

BrettStah said:


> The same person who has now made multiple racist tweets?


Yes - and the same person who created and produced a show about diversity and inclusion. 
INCLUDING the new season reboot.

Maybe she has spilt personalities?


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Cainebj said:


> Yes - and the same person who created and produced a show about diversity and inclusion.
> INCLUDING the new season reboot.
> 
> Maybe she has spilt personalities?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Cainebj said:


> Yes - and the same person who created and produced a show about diversity and inclusion.
> INCLUDING the new season reboot.
> 
> Maybe she has spilt personalities?


Never in the history of man has a person who hates or commits egregious acts has done "good works" in public. Sure.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

getbak said:


> He's Australian. They use the C word like a comma down there.


Jim Jeffries is _from_ Australia, now lives in LA, and IIRC is now an American citizen. His CC show is ok (his old FX/FXX show, 'Legit' was better, but his standup act is excellent, saw hm perform a few times (he has a few specials on Netflix)


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I read a response from someone on another message board that said
_Roseanne and the show was such a beacon in the 90s which is why what is happening now is even so much more disappointing._
That pretty much sums up how I feel.


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

I finally burned through my queue of all of this season's Roseanne episodes...

Wow...it was actually quite entertaining...the writing was well done... Oh well... See ya Roseanne, it was a nice reboot albeit a short one...


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

A reboot focused on Sara Gilbert's character, Darlene?

Ew. Just "Ew."

Everything I've seen of hers involves the same fairly slow, almost monotone delivery. For the life of me, I cannot tell much difference between Leslie Winkle and Darlene Connor, for example. And all of her characters (however similar they are) just grate on my last nerve.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

I've always liked Sara Gilbert, but come on! If it was about Jackie I'd give it a go, but a hard no on the Darlene thing.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

I am guessing (besides the fact that she got the reboot together in the first place) is her kids are interesting as is her relationship with her sister. I suppose I could see it working, but hopefully it will be less about Darlene and more about everyone else...


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

They should just name the show "The Connors" with the show focused on everyone in the family and be done with it...


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

They'll do something if they think it'll be successful, and isn't making money for Roseanne (that is a guess on my part). So if she has any rights to the use of the existing characters, they likely will not use them, IMO.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

I imagine they’ll try to come up with an idea that’s viable, that can live for a few seasons, and the lawyers will work out the financials that do or don’t involve RB. 

I can’t see her being any kind of stumbling block. Any monetary participation she has will be quickly forgotten, as long as there’s no editorial connection.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

No reason they can't just basically change the names and a few details. It's not like this was the first family sitcom created.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

ABC will pass.
Netflix or Amazon maybe.


----------



## pdhenry (Feb 28, 2005)

BrettStah said:


> No reason they can't just basically change the names and a few details. It's not like this was the first family sitcom created.


They could change it from the Connors to the Bronners and they could spend most of each show rambling on about the Moral ABC and the All-One-God-Faith.


Spoiler


----------



## thewebgal (Aug 10, 2007)

Well, the easy thing is done - the show has been killed, DEAD!
The hard part would be any kind of further revival, 
which I'll guess the pockets that be will not go forward with.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

astrohip said:


> Living Biblically.


I thought she has been WAY better on Roseanne (the orig seasons, I've still only watched the 1st ep of the new one -- I still have the rest) and BBT... I thought her role on Living Biblically just seemed way different than anything else I've seen her play.. I'm wondering if whichever of those morning shows she's on doesn't pay enough and she's hard up for money. I actually thought the show was vaguely interesting despite my own views.. though he really wasn't "living biblically" if he wasn't stoning people and such.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

mattack said:


> I thought she has been WAY better on Roseanne (the orig seasons, I've still only watched the 1st ep of the new one -- I still have the rest) and BBT... I thought her role on Living Biblically just seemed way different than anything else I've seen her play.. I'm wondering if whichever of those morning shows she's on doesn't pay enough and she's hard up for money. I actually thought the show was vaguely interesting despite my own views.. though he really wasn't "living biblically" if he wasn't stoning people and such.


Agree.

I liked Living Biblically. I won't cry its loss, like Lucifer for example, but it was a cute, funny, upbeat show. Sara Gilbert had a weird role--only appeared sporadically, and when she did, played this incredibly cynical, disillusioned obit writer. It was odd to see Camryn Manheim also; her role was way below her skill level and pay grade.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

I'll just leave this right here:

Roseanne Barr's epic battles over the years.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

JYoung said:


> I'll just leave this right here:
> 
> Roseanne Barr's epic battles over the years.


If Roseanne sued to get profits from a revival of the show without her in it it would cause ABC to kill the series altogether.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

brianric said:


> If Roseanne sued to get profits from a revival of the show without her in it it would cause ABC to kill the series altogether.


She's expected to sign an agreement that they can go forward without her (or her profiting).


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

thewebgal said:


> Well, the easy thing is done - the show has been killed, DEAD!
> The hard part would be any kind of further revival,
> which I'll guess the pockets that be will not go forward with.


A Roseanne spinoff could officially be finalized as soon as next week


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

I've now heard 2 re-boot possibilities being discussed, one focusing on the Sara Gilbert character Darlene and the second being a more general "The Connors" approach.

A motivating factor: apparently, John Goodman, Laurie Metcalf, and Sara Gilbert have a "Roseanne" contract giving them $300,000 per episode for a 2nd "Roseanne" 10-episode season, which is due to them regardless of the cancellation.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Mikeguy said:


> I've now heard 2 re-boot possibilities being discussed, one focusing on the Sara Gilbert character Darlene and the second being a more general "The Connors" approach.
> 
> A motivating factor: apparently, John Goodman, Laurie Metcalf, and Sara Gilbert have a "Roseanne" contract giving them $300,000 per episode for a 2nd "Roseanne" 10-episode season, which is due to them regardless of the cancellation.


Man acting pays a lot. I wouldn't want to do it as a career, but if I could just get one "season" of pay like that I'd be set for life.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Man acting pays a lot. I wouldn't want to do it as a career, but if I could just get one "season" of pay like that I'd be set for life.


Is there any surprise that Sara Gilbert wanted to get the re-boot going, and would love for it to continue? It's her big ticket.

Candidly, I was a bit surprised that the $$ weren't higher, given how these things go, especially for John Goodman and perhaps Laurie Metcalf. Perhaps because it was a re-boot?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Mikeguy said:


> Is there any surprise that Sara Gilbert wanted to get the re-boot going, and would love for it to continue? It's her big ticket.
> 
> Candidly, I was a bit surprised that the $$ weren't higher, given how these things go, especially for John Goodman and perhaps Laurie Metcalf. Perhaps because it was a re-boot?


I just read that Gilbert is worth $16 million and has a steady job. I don't think this his her big ticket.

She also is listed as creator of the Talk.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Yeah I thought she was out of work too, but my Sister reminded me that she has been on The Talk for years.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Yeah I thought she was out of work too, but my Sister reminded me that she has been on The Talk for years.


She got the idea for the reboot after John Goodman was on The Talk.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> I just read that Gilbert is worth $16 million and has a steady job. I don't think this his her big ticket.
> 
> She also is listed as creator of the Talk.


Yep, and a substantial part of her income thus far from "Roseanne" (original + re-boot), if I were to guess. I just don't know that Sara Gilbert has a lot of steady, high-pay work offers coming in (how many actors do?). But who knows what the future could hold, for anyone.

In the meanwhile, $3M for part-time work in the year is nice to have, and provides nice trust funds for the kids. Grab it while you can.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Mikeguy said:


> Yep, and a substantial part of her income thus far from "Roseanne" (original + re-boot), if I were to guess.
> 
> In the meanwhile, $3M for part-time work in the year is nice to have.


I don't think she's hurting or needs the money, but she (and the rest of the cast) just lost whatever residuals they were making from the reruns as well.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

realityboy said:


> I don't think she's hurting or needs the money, but she (and the rest of the cast) *just lost whatever residuals they were making from the reruns as well*.


I wonder if that will settle down, with the passage of time. It just feels distinct to me from the Cosby situation.

It does make me wonder how the rest of the case feels. While it has seemed to me that the principal cast became set for life even without on-going acting careers, it's still nice having that money coming in the door each year. But it's a different business, and perhaps part of that brings an understanding that it's more uncertain than many others for whatever the reason. (Still, I'd be ticked . . . .)

In the meanwhile, yep, no need to set up a TCF Sara Gilbert fund.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Mikeguy said:


> Yep, and a substantial part of her income thus far from "Roseanne" (original + re-boot), if I were to guess. I just don't know that Sara Gilbert has a lot of steady, high-pay work offers coming in (how many actors do?). But who knows what the future could hold, for anyone.
> 
> In the meanwhile, $3M for part-time work in the year is nice to have, and provides nice trust funds for the kids. Grab it while you can.


Read again. She owns and stars on a daily talk show. She doesn't need acting gigs. She is rich. Extra money is always good but it is far from her only income nor does she need it.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> Read again. She owns and stars on a daily talk show. She doesn't need acting gigs. She is rich. Extra money is always good but it is far from her only income nor does she need it.


Thank you. I have read and I've also seen her discuss matters. Actually, she lives a pretty normal life (she's not in a Beverly Hills mansion) but I am sure would be perfectly fine having the "extra" income, and this is her time to get it--I'm not sure how much she is seen as a standby in Hollywood (I gather that she was one of the instigators behind the daytime talk show "The Talk" perhaps for this very reason, amongst others).

I'm not saying that she is "needy," far from it, as you note--but further income always is good, for many reasons and purposes, especially in Hollywood where opportunities can be fickle/sporadic at best. (I've seen Patricia Heaton be very gracious about her good fortune in having had 2 hit television series, "Everybody Loves Raymond" and "The Middle.")


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Anthjo said:


> Have you seen all the crazy stuff that Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Jeanine Pirro traffic in on a nightly basis? Look, we get it. You obviously don't like Joy Reid. That doesn't mean she should be fired because of her evolving positions on something she said over a decade ago. I'm gay and didn't find what she said offensive. Context matters. Also, there's obviously a pattern of Joy Reid becoming a fierce advocate for oppressed communities. Ms. Reid has become a true ally for people of color as well as those in the LGBTQ community while Roseanne is.....well, she's still Roseanne.
> 
> Making a historically racist and grossly inappropriate correlation between a person of color and an ape is not a joke. It's classic textbook racism, not to mention vile and disgusting. C'mon man. It's 2018. We've got to do better. It should also be noted that this isn't the first time Roseanne has said something offensive. She's been taking shots at other prominent black folks for some time now.
> 
> For what it's worth, Anthony Weiner is a total POS and deserved everything bad that has transpired as a result. There's a huge difference between a TV pundit and a (then) elected official. Surely you know that.


It wasn't an actual ape. It was a character from the movie Planet of the Apes. And if you look at the picture there is actually a similarity between them. From my point of view that is a fact. And I'm African American.

Now if the comparison had been to an actual ape. Then yes, I would think it was racist. But as it is, I just look at it as a poor joke. Not something that everyone got up in arms over. But that seems to be the new thing now. If someone were to just look at someone the wrong way then suddenly they are doing something wrong sexually or tried to rape the person.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

aaronwt said:


> It wasn't an actual ape. It was a character from the movie Planet of the Apes. And if you look at the picture there is actually a similarity between them. From my point of view that is a fact. And I'm African American.


(Parenthetically, for some reason starting a few years back (the reboot of the "Planet of the Apes" series?), my over-active mind would envision characters/actors on a television program, at random, all as apes from the "Planet of the Apes" milieu. White actors, Asian, black, Native American, men, women, kids--suddenly now on the show but as apes as I watched. It's amazing how most of us transfer over so easily, and how attractive many of the characters would end up . . . .  But not something I point out to people individually in the mall, à la the recent "you have to shower before swimming" swimming pool dude.)

At the very least, it was an insensitive reference by Roseanne, it seems to me, and foolish. And going beyond least, an intentional demeaning reference, much as was/has been done with Michelle and Barack Obama and which is not done with whites. It seems to me.


----------



## nickels (Jan 11, 2010)

The old "It was just a bad joke" excuse. I believe that as mush as I believe the other nonsense that she regularly posts from her twitter account.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Mikeguy said:


> Thank you. I have read and I've also seen her discuss matters. Actually, she lives a pretty normal life (she's not in a Beverly Hills mansion) but I am sure would be perfectly fine having the "extra" income, and this is her time to get it--I'm not sure how much she is seen as a standby in Hollywood (I gather that she was one of the instigators behind the daytime talk show "The Talk" perhaps for this very reason, amongst others).
> 
> I'm not saying that she is "needy," far from it, as you note--but further income always is good, for many reasons and purposes, especially in Hollywood where opportunities can be fickle/sporadic at best. (I've seen Patricia Heaton be very gracious about her good fortune in having had 2 hit television series, "Everybody Loves Raymond" and "The Middle.")


You'd be surprised how many wealthy actors don't live in mansions. Houses are expensive in LA.


----------



## MPSAN (Jun 20, 2009)

Someone reported on the radio that the show will be back, but I had to go before the comm'l was over.!


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

MPSAN said:


> Someone reported on the radio that the show will be back, but I had to go before the comm'l was over.!


Without Barr, right?


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

Roseanne Spinoff Reportedly Moving Ahead as Roseanne Barr Agrees to Walk Away from Show


----------



## MPSAN (Jun 20, 2009)

ncbill said:


> Without Barr, right?


Yes, without her.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Officially a go!

ABC picks up 'The Conners,' a 'Roseanne' spinoff without Roseanne Barr


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

I’ll be watching.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

smak said:


> Officially a go!
> 
> ABC picks up 'The Conners,' a 'Roseanne' spinoff without Roseanne Barr


Wow, just wow.  Now, John Goodman, Laurie Metcalf, and Sara Gilbert will have to work for their previously-vested 2nd year salaries (a good incentive to the producers/network for the series to go forward). 

Please, folks, don't flame me for saying this, but something also should be said for the fact the RB agreed to forego financial and creative connection, in order for this to occur.


> Barr, an executive producer who was listed as co-creator of the most recent season, had to agree forego any involvement as a condition of ABC's pickup of the new series.
> 
> "I regret the circumstances that have caused me to be removed from "Roseanne," she said in a statement. "I agreed to the settlement in order that 200 jobs of beloved cast and crew could be saved, and I wish the best for everyone involved."


But, guess we'll have to set new TiVo Season Passes, given the name change.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Hey. Even deranged racist *****es can be nice to their friends.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

TonyD79 said:


> Hey. Even deranged racist *****es can be nice to their friends.


Pitchforks and torches help.


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

Notice that Barr herself refers to a "settlement."

That is consistent with what I've read in previous stories...that she would receive a one-time payment to buy her partial rights.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Did Goodman or Metcalf ever release a statement, tweet, or otherwise comment publicly on Barr's tweet?


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Tony_T said:


> Did Goodman or Metcalf ever release a statement, tweet, or otherwise comment publicly on Barr's tweet?


The only thing I saw from John Goodman was when he was nabbed by TMZ or another such group, perhaps at the airport. He gave a very non-committal, brief response.


----------



## sharkster (Jul 3, 2004)

I wonder if all the other actors are deciding to be involved in the new, non-Roseanne, piece.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

I saw Goodman on a talk show (maybe that was the TMZ clip) say he didn’t want to say anything about it for fear of making anything worse. I don’t think any of them wanted any part of something controversial. They’d supported Roseanne in the past against the network because her name’s on the show, but they kept their mouths shut to not tick off the network/internet nor Roseanne.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

sharkster said:


> I wonder if all the other actors are deciding to be involved in the new, non-Roseanne, piece.


I think the money will be so good for them there's no reason not to. Why let Roseanne's stupidity ruin the livelihood of everyone else who made the show successful.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

sharkster said:


> I wonder if all the other actors are deciding to be involved in the new, non-Roseanne, piece.


I believe that one of the recent articles mentioned that the original "immediate family" (sans Roseanne)would be back--it didn't say anything the grandkids generation, the friends, etc.

Now that you mention it, I wonder about some of the producers--e.g. Wanda Sykes and Whitney Cummings. (I never was clear why they were involved to begin with--it always struck me as odd, that comics would be involved in another comic's show--but deals can have interesting paths.)


----------



## jcondon (Jul 9, 2003)

Comics write jokes for other comics/shows all the time.

19 Comedians You Might Not Know Wrote for SNL

8 comedians who worked for David Letterman before they were big


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Mikeguy said:


> I believe that one of the recent articles mentioned that the original "immediate family" (sans Roseanne)would be back--it didn't say anything the grandkids generation, the friends, etc.
> 
> Now that you mention it, I wonder about some of the producers--e.g. Wanda Sykes and Whitney Cummings. (I never was clear why they were involved to begin with--it always struck me as odd, that comics would be involved in another comic's show--but deals can have interesting paths.)


Whitney Cummings left before the latest controversy. No idea if Wanda Sykes would want to come back or not.


----------



## Hcour (Dec 24, 2007)

Here's how it'll go: The new show will have big ratings the first ep or two and will then decline each week until they cancel it. Because, whatever they want to call it, they're trying to do Roseanne w/o Roseanne and it just ain't gonna work.


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

I disagree. There are other actresses out there they can hire to join the cast as a Roseanne-like character, if that’s what they want/need. Dime a dozen.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

jcondon said:


> Comics write jokes for other comics/shows all the time.
> 
> 19 Comedians You Might Not Know Wrote for SNL
> 
> 8 comedians who worked for David Letterman before they were big


Sure, but not as common after they have established their own successes, such as Wanda Sykes (and Whitney Cummings?--I'm not as familiar with her) have.


realityboy said:


> Whitney Cummings left before the latest controversy. No idea if Wanda Sykes would want to come back or not.


But my impression, from the few comments I've seen from Whitney Cummings, is that Whitney Cummings left because of the atmosphere/work environment at the show. It probably is unfair, but I tend to assume that something like that at that show somehow involves Roseanne.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Hcour said:


> Here's how it'll go: The new show will have big ratings the first ep or two and will then decline each week until they cancel it. Because, whatever they want to call it, they're trying to do Roseanne w/o Roseanne and it just ain't gonna work.


It all depends on the writing.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Surely she will be dead

and why would you want to replace her with an exact clone?


----------



## Hcour (Dec 24, 2007)

TonyD79 said:


> It all depends on the writing.


The writing will be the same style, the same kind of humor, but w/o Roseanne at the center of it. Which won't work. I give it one season, maybe, before cancellation.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

jsmeeker said:


> Surely she will be dead


I wouldn't want them to replace her, but if they could figure out a _plausible_ way of having the show without that character without killing her off (for one season, it'd be even more unbelievable the longer it went on), I think that might be more interesting.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

jcondon said:


> 8 comedians who worked for David Letterman before they were big


Strange article..

Chris Elliott.. Duhh.. ok, Letterman's the first thing I think of when I think of him.. and it's not like he's doing anything big nowadays either, so I think it's what many people think of.. or his old Fox sitcom..

Merrill Markoe.. They don't even mention her relationship with Dave...

Dino Stamatopoulos.. Besides Star Burns, I would've thought people would know him for Moral Orel.

I didn't know about Will Forte being on the show, that was the only surprising one.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

My guess is that Laurie Metcalf will move in to help out and never leave. I see no reason to replace Rosanne.

They did luck out as they can easily have her character die during surgery, so better than how they had to ignore Dan's death in the revival.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Hcour said:


> The writing will be the same style, the same kind of humor, but w/o Roseanne at the center of it. Which won't work. I give it one season, maybe, before cancellation.


You are assuming it won't work. There are some great characters.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Hcour said:


> The writing will be the same style, the same kind of humor, but w/o Roseanne at the center of it. Which won't work. I give it one season, maybe, before cancellation.


Well, they need and presumably want a way to try to recoup already-obligated season 2 costs--my understanding is that the production team is on the hook for $9M to John Goodman, Laurie Metcalf, and Sara Gilbert, upon originally picking the series up for a second season. (I wonder if the production team likewise remained on the hook to Roseanne herself, or if her contract had an escape clause that could be enforced.)


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Roseanne’s name was on the show but she wasn’t the center of it to begin with. Most of the time was always spent on other characters.


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

It's gonna fail miserably.


----------



## MPSAN (Jun 20, 2009)

jsmeeker said:


> Surely she will be dead
> 
> and why would you want to replace her with an exact clone?


That would be easy as I said before, she was very afraid of knee surgery and they can all be sad and say she did not make it after all!


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

Or sideswiped by a garbage truck,while being an uber driver.


----------



## Test (Dec 8, 2004)

Wasn’t she still hooked on drugs when the season ended? She had those hidden pills in the ice pack after dan thought he found them all. 

Just send her off to rehab


----------



## Regina (Mar 30, 2003)

Test said:


> Wasn't she still hooked on drugs when the season ended? She had those hidden pills in the ice pack after dan thought he found them all.
> 
> Just send her off to rehab


..or have her OD...could be a statement about Lanford's (and the rest of America's) drug problem...


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Regina said:


> ..or have her OD...could be a statement about Lanford's (and the rest of America's) drug problem...


Or, she could have a heart attack. And it could be a statement about America's problem with obesity.


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

RGM1138 said:


> Or, she could have a heart attack. And it could be a statement about America's problem with obesity.


Or a suicide, and it could be a statement on the mental health epidemic.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

realityboy said:


> Or a suicide, and it could be a statement on the mental health epidemic.


It would seem there are numerous possibilities.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

realityboy said:


> Or a suicide, and it could be a statement on the mental health epidemic.


That would be a little heavy.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

realityboy said:


> Or a suicide, and it could be a statement on the mental health epidemic.


Not a fan of this. They did this on _House_ with Dr. Kudner when Kal Penn left the show to work for the Obama administration; the episode centered around House trying to figure out why Kudner killed himself, and ending up realizing that there are some questions he just can't answer.

Then again, anything is better than another round of, "What did she die of?" "Does it matter?"


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Test said:


> Wasn't she still hooked on drugs when the season ended? She had those hidden pills in the ice pack after dan thought he found them all.
> 
> Just send her off to rehab


She could just die in surgery.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Hcour said:


> Here's how it'll go: The new show will have big ratings the first ep or two and will then decline each week until they cancel it. Because, whatever they want to call it, they're trying to do Roseanne w/o Roseanne and it just ain't gonna work.


Two and a half men lasted 4 seasons after they killed off Charlie Sheen and replaced him with Ashton Kutcher. Even with the rediculous premis they used to keep Jon Cryer's charater living in the house with a total stranger.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

One thing that could be weird if they kill her off is they'll have to spend at least one episode having the cast grieve for her. Not sure how well that would go over given what she did.


----------



## Hcour (Dec 24, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> Two and a half men lasted 4 seasons after they killed off Charlie Sheen and replaced him with Ashton Kutcher. Even with the rediculous premis they used to keep Jon Cryer's charater living in the house with a total stranger.


True dat, but I don't think it's the same thing. I would say this is more akin to replacing (or getting rid of) Mary Tyler Moore, or Newhart, or Cosby, or Seinfeld.

I'll stick by my prediction. We can all revisit this thread in a year and see wha's up.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Dan203 said:


> One thing that could be weird if they kill her off is they'll have to spend at least one episode having the cast grieve for her. Not sure how well that would go over given what she did.


They could time-jump over it. Or they could just ignore it like they did when Becky changed actors.


----------



## ACoolDude (Dec 11, 2001)

Or they could have her regenerate (Dr Who style) screaming "I Don't wanna go...THEY are doing this" and drop into...


Wanda Sykes


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

Or they could have her post a racist tweet and Dan (and everyone else) in disgust leaves her.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

She’s in a coma from an ambien overdose. And the whole season is a dream. Been done? Never mind.

Maybe they can add that it is all told via tweets.


----------



## nickels (Jan 11, 2010)

My graph showing the popularity of the upcoming series:


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Depends on the writing. There will be a uptick for the curious but how many will stay away because they think she is a victim?


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

Why are so many rooting for the new series to fail?


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

GoPackGo said:


> Why are so many rooting for the new series to fail?


My guess? Some think Roseanne didn't do anything wrong, or at least what she did wasn't worth getting fired over.


----------



## ScubaCat (Jun 26, 2003)

I think Wanda Sykes should join the cast as DJ's mother-in-law. That would be fun to watch!


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

BrettStah said:


> My guess? Some think Roseanne didn't do anything wrong, or at least what she did wasn't worth getting fired over.


Ah, I understand now. Thanks.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

BrettStah said:


> My guess? Some think Roseanne didn't do anything wrong, or at least what she did wasn't worth getting fired over.


Or, as I believe, what she did was so wrong that even if she's gone and gets no income from the show that the show still shouldn't be revived.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Tony_T said:


> Or, as I believe, what she did was so wrong that even if she's gone and gets no income from the show that the show still shouldn't be revived.


If the head of the company you work for did the same and was removed, do you think the rest of your company should be shut down?


----------



## nickels (Jan 11, 2010)

I wouldn't say I am rooting for the reboot sequel to fail - but I think that is what is going to happen. What Roseanne did was racist, terrible, and crazy, and she deserved to be immediately fired. The network is trying to milk this money maker for all it is worth and I don't think that is going to get the ratings they are expecting. Everyone will tune in to see how they are trying to pull it off, then they will all lose interest after a few episodes. Here is hoping I am wrong and it is spectacular.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

If they don't replace her character, then each episode should be quite cheaper to make, right? I assume she was making more than the other actors.


----------



## nickels (Jan 11, 2010)

Roseanne made a bunch of money on the next show for agreeing to leave. It was probably the same amount they would have paid her if she stayed.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

nickels said:


> Roseanne made a bunch of money on the next show for agreeing to leave. It was probably the same amount they would have paid her if she stayed.


How is she going to get another show after this debacle? Is there any studio that wants to be associated with her?


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Tony_T said:


> Or, as I believe, what she did was so wrong that even if she's gone and gets no income from the show that the show still shouldn't be revived.


"Roseanne Barr will have no financial or creative involvement in the new series," the network's release said. What's more, Werner and Barr issued a joint statement confirming that she'll have no "further creative or financial participation."

She got what she's going to get no matter if the show flops or succeeds.


----------



## Hcour (Dec 24, 2007)

I'm not "rooting" for anything one way or t'other. I think it's an interesting, somewhat unique situation and simply expressed my opinion about it.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

RGM1138 said:


> If the head of the company you work for did the same and was removed, do you think the rest of your company should be shut down?


FOX is not shutting down.
The entertainment division of FOX is not shutting down.
The TV division of the entertainment division of FOX is not shutting down.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Tony_T said:


> FOX is not shutting down.
> The entertainment division of FOX is not shutting down.
> The TV division of the entertainment division of FOX is not shutting down.


No, but a lot of working class people were set to lose their jobs.

You're saying it's not important because only 150 craftspeople are displaced instead of thousands?

What's the limit where it's okay for that to happen?


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

RGM1138 said:


> No, but a lot of working class people were set to lose their jobs.
> 
> You're saying it's not important because only 150 craftspeople are displaced instead of thousands?
> 
> What's the limit where it's okay for that to happen?


While I feel bad about the people that lose their jobs every time a show is canceled regardless of reason, there are a number of people that get new jobs due to the place on the schedule opening. ABC's programming 15 hours of prime time so if one show's canceled another takes it place.


----------



## Tony_T (Nov 2, 2017)

RGM1138 said:


> No, but a lot of working class people were set to lose their jobs.


Was there going to be a test pattern if they didn't do the Connors?
Were all these working class workers sitting around for 20 years waiting for the revival? - They all would have been used in other shows (not just FOX) if they didn't renew for next year.
The only ones that would have been put out of work were the actors who could not easily find another show to perform on.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

nickels said:


> I wouldn't say I am rooting for the reboot sequel to fail - but I think that is what is going to happen. What Roseanne did was racist, terrible, and crazy, and she deserved to be immediately fired. *The network is trying to milk this money maker for all it is worth *and I don't think that is going to get the ratings they are expecting. Everyone will tune in to see how they are trying to pull it off, then they will all lose interest after a few episodes. Here is hoping I am wrong and it is spectacular.


Well, and with the re-formatted second season, also trying to recoup significant sunk money that otherwise would have been lost--e.g. the $9M for John Goodman, Laurie Metcalf and Sara Goodman seemingly legally committed to when the second season originally was picked up, let alone other amounts for other actors, etc.


RGM1138 said:


> How is she going to get another show after this debacle? Is there any studio that wants to be associated with her?


Truth be told, Roseanne hadn't gotten another broadcast show since "Roseanne" originally went off the air. But I don't know if she tried or if she wanted another series. She did have her own "I'm Roseanne" life reality show. 


Tony_T said:


> Was there going to be a test pattern if they didn't do the Connors?
> Were all these working class workers sitting around for 20 years waiting for the revival? - They all would have been used in other shows (not just FOX) if they didn't renew for next year.
> The only ones that would have been put out of work were the actors who could not easily find another show to perform on.


No doubt partly the case for some, but perhaps not the case for others--uncertainties. And as to the actors, producers are not beating the door down for, e.g., Michael Fishman (not to pick on him)--even for someone like John Goodman, a series can be a bit of lightening in a bottle.


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

mattack said:


> Strange article..
> 
> Chris Elliott.. Duhh.. ok, Letterman's the first thing I think of when I think of him.. and it's not like he's doing anything big nowadays either, so I think it's what many people think of.. or his old Fox sitcom..


He's entering his 5th season on Schitt's Creek.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Tony_T said:


> Was there going to be a test pattern if they didn't do the Connors?
> Were all these working class workers sitting around for 20 years waiting for the revival? - They all would have been used in other shows (not just FOX) if they didn't renew for next year.
> The only ones that would have been put out of work were the actors who could not easily find another show to perform on.


Wow. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

There was a somewhat similar situation situation with Kevin Spacey recently. But, he was pulled from the show and it will go on without him. Should they have dumped that show too?

And he's done arguably worse things than Roseanne Barr.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

RGM1138 said:


> Wow. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.
> 
> There was a somewhat similar situation situation with Kevin Spacey recently. But, he was pulled from the show and it will go on without him. Should they have dumped that show too?
> 
> And he's done arguably worse things than Roseanne Barr.


"Arguably" being today's understatement . . . .


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Mikeguy said:


> "Arguably" being today's understatement . . . .


True enough. But, he hasn't been convicted of anything yet, and I don't have the right to judge him in print.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

RGM1138 said:


> There was a somewhat similar situation situation with Kevin Spacey recently. But, he was pulled from the show and it will go on without him.


I thought they were 'just' going to finish one last season.

(I haven't watched any of it.. I hope whatever eon I sign up for Netflix again, it remains on so I can at least watch a couple of eps to check it out.. I see that not all of Bill Cosby's work has been eradicated.. I Spy is still on amazon prime video..)


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

I'm still trying to figure out what FOX has to do with anything.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

laria said:


> I'm still trying to figure out what FOX has to do with anything.


Actually, nothing. The show was/will be shot at CBS Studios in LA and distributed by ABC TV.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

laria said:


> I'm still trying to figure out what FOX has to do with anything.


I think they might have been referring to Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reily at Fox News. They both did horrible things and the network covered it up with payoffs until it became too public for them to do anymore.


----------



## That Don Guy (Mar 13, 2003)

laria said:


> I'm still trying to figure out what FOX has to do with anything.


The only mention I ever heard about Fox and this show is, Fox was mentioned as a possible new home for the show (with Barr still involved, although I doubt that was ever going to happen) once ABC cancelled it.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

I was enjoying the reboot a surprising amount, and I'll keep watching the rebooted reboot (the re-reboot?). I'm not super optimistic though. Roseanne Barr may be an ugly person IRL, but she's always been the glue in both the writing and acting of this series. Not that Barr herself is really a standout as an actor, but her schtick in the show was kind of what held everything else together -- pretty much all the personalities of the other characters have been formed and defined by their contrast and interactions with the Roseanne character. For that reason, I feel like remaking this particular show without its central character is an especially big challenge. BIG shift for the writers -- I'd say 80+% of the jokes that work in this show are Roseanne's one-liners or other people's one-liners in response to Roseanne, or jokes about Roseanne. And with John Goodman as the notable exception, I'm not convinced that the rest of the cast has the acting chops to carry on without having the larger-than-life Roseanne character to play off of. I hope they make it happen though!


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Ruth said:


> I was enjoying the reboot a surprising amount, and I'll keep watching the rebooted reboot (the re-reboot?). I'm not super optimistic though. Roseanne Barr may be an ugly person IRL, but she's always been the glue in both the writing and acting of this series. Not that Barr herself is really a standout as an actor, but her schtick in the show was kind of what held everything else together -- pretty much all the personalities of the other characters have been formed and defined by their contrast and interactions with the Roseanne character. For that reason, I feel like remaking this particular show without its central character is an especially big challenge. BIG shift for the writers -- I'd say 80+% of the jokes that work in this show are Roseanne's one-liners or other people's one-liners in response to Roseanne, or jokes about Roseanne. And with John Goodman as the notable exception, I'm not convinced that the rest of the cast has the acting chops to carry on without having the larger-than-life Roseanne character to play off of. I hope they make it happen though!


I agree to a degree, esp. that it will be a writing challenge.

Having said that, I always thought that Sara Gilbert did a good job on the show. And Laurie Metcalf--she won the first acting Emmy award for the show, among the show's actors; and has 3 Emmy's for the show, along with 2 Tony Awards (the most recent from earlier this month, for Edward Albee's "3 Tall Women").


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Mikeguy said:


> I agree to a degree, esp. that it will be a writing challenge.
> 
> Having said that, I always thought that Sara Gilbert did a good job on the show. And Laurie Metcalf--she won the first acting Emmy award for the show, among the show's actors; and has 3 Emmy's for the show, along with 2 Tony Awards (the most recent from earlier this month, for Edward Albee's "3 Tall Women").


 By far, Laurie Metcalf is the best actor in the cast. And that even includes John Goodman. Jackie has to be the center of the show.


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

Laurie Metcalf may be a great actor, but I've never seen it come through in the Jackie character, TBH. Maybe it's the writing?


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

Actually, in the reboot, it seemed like they turned Jackie into a caricature of the person she was in the original run. 

If the Roseanne character was killed off, I can see everyone rallying around her as the new center of the family. If she was the same person she played in the first 9 seasons. 

Of course, there would need to be changes, but good writers could pull it off.


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

Ruth said:


> Laurie Metcalf may be a great actor, but I've never seen it come through in the Jackie character, TBH. Maybe it's the writing?


It's come out brilliantly, comedically, in a few notable scenes from the original series--I'm thinking of the pot scene with Jackie, Roseanne, and Dan partaking of a joint in the Conner bathroom; and a scene where Jackie tells Roseanne to buzz off, using mime motions to indicate the wall she wants between the 2 sisters. Also, some of the scenes depicted in the domestic abuse storyline were skillfully painful to watch.

But I also agree with you--much of her talent was not brought out in the series, and I thought that she often was a caricature in the re-boot. Such a shame.


----------



## Mike Lang (Nov 17, 1999)

Jerry Seinfeld wants ABC to replace Roseanne in 'The Conners': 'I hate to see a comic lose a job'

"I didn't see why it was necessary to fire her," he told the outlet.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Mike Lang said:


> Jerry Seinfeld wants ABC to replace Roseanne in 'The Conners': 'I hate to see a comic lose a job'
> 
> "I didn't see why it was necessary to fire her," he told the outlet.


You forgot Seinfeld's punch line:



> "I didn't see why it was necessary to fire her," he told the outlet in the video below. "Why would you murder someone who's committing suicide?"


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Mike Lang said:


> Jerry Seinfeld wants ABC to replace Roseanne in 'The Conners': 'I hate to see a comic lose a job'
> 
> "I didn't see why it was necessary to fire her," he told the outlet.





JYoung said:


> You forgot Seinfeld's punch line:
> "Why would you murder someone who's committing suicide?"


And the punchline definitely changes the meaning quite a bit. Just reading Mike's initial post, I was expecting that Jerry was going to get a lot of heat for defending her tweet.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

JYoung said:


> You forgot Seinfeld's punch line:


Jerry seems to be all over the place on this subject.

"Not seeing why it was necessary to fire her" and then suggesting a replacement be hired, seems contradictory to me.



> The star continued: "I think they should get another Roseanne. They brought Dan Conner back, he was dead and they brought him back. So, why can't we get another Roseanne? There's other funny women that could do that part. You need to get the comic in there. I hate to see a comic lose a job."


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

I don't see the contradiction... The first part seems like a joke attempt - basically no need to get rid of her if she's self-destructing. The replacement part is him saying he hopes/thinks they hire another comic to take over the role.


----------



## Adam1115 (Dec 15, 2003)

Fofer said:


> Jerry seems to be all over the place on this subject.
> 
> "Not seeing why it was necessary to fire her" and then suggesting a replacement be hired, seems contradictory to me.
> 
> ...


I think he's saying that she's a comedian and he thinks the show should have a comedian, and that she probably would have self destructed had she not been fired.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Adam1115 said:


> I think he's saying that she's a comedian and he thinks the show should have a comedian, and that she probably would have self destructed had she not been fired.


What he says makes sense - I would only point out to him that she DID self-destruct.


----------



## nickels (Jan 11, 2010)

Well, if anyone has experience with a nutty co-worker spewing racism, Jerry is that guy. He is clear in the video, her character should be replaced by another female comedian. The other part about her being fired seemed like an attempted joke he just threw out there that wasn't as coherent.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

I wonder how it would have worked if they did try to replace her with another comedienne. 

No one comes to mind who has the same kind of background that could just continue on with the role. And would be accepted by the audience. 

It’s an intriguing thought.


----------



## ncbill (Sep 1, 2007)

nickels said:


> Well, if anyone has experience with a nutty co-worker spewing racism, Jerry is that guy. He is clear in the video, her character should be replaced by another female comedian. The other part about her being fired seemed like an attempted joke he just threw out there that wasn't as coherent.


I like the "Wanda Sykes as the mom-in-law" suggestion...


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

ncbill said:


> I like the "Wanda Sykes as the mom-in-law" suggestion...


That's a thought. She's definitely a comedienne.

I know she was funny as hell on The New Adventures Of Old Christine. Maybe they could make it work here.


----------



## Frylock (Feb 13, 2002)

I've been rewatching the series. I think Roseanne's punishment should have been to rewatch it as well, and see how everything she rallies against now she was a promoter of in the original seasons.


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

BrettStah said:


> And the punchline definitely changes the meaning quite a bit. Just reading Mike's initial post, I was expecting that Jerry was going to get a lot of heat for defending her tweet.


Case in point:



Fofer said:


> Jerry seems to be all over the place on this subject.
> 
> "Not seeing why it was necessary to fire her" and then suggesting a replacement be hired, seems contradictory to me.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Well, Jerry's apparent wishy-washiness on the issue is one thing. (And when I watched the interview, it became clearer to me what he was thinking with his answer.)

Cherrypicking one sentence from his answer, out of context, that completely changes its intended meaning, is another.


----------



## RGM1138 (Oct 6, 1999)

The more I read about Ms Barr’s problems, the more I begin to feel she’s just someone to pity, not to hate on.

It doesn’t feel like she’s coming from a place of hate, but more of mental instability. If I were to hate her for that, it would make me as bad as the people actually hate other people irrationally.

Of course, there have been and will be consequences. But, I don’t feel comfortable jumping on the bandwagon with those who figuratively want to stone her.

I’m by no means any authority on mental illness, but I do know redemption is something we all hope for at some point in our lives.

Maybe it can happen for her as well.


----------



## MLR930 (Dec 26, 2002)

RGM1138 said:


> The more I read about Ms Barr's problems, the more I begin to feel she's just someone to pity, not to hate on.
> 
> It doesn't feel like she's coming from a place of hate, but more of mental instability. If I were to hate her for that, it would make me as bad as the people actually hate other people irrationally.
> 
> ...


I remember hearing about her having mental problems growing up and I also remember hearing about her being in a bad car accident. Not sure if those two are related or not.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I finally finished watching the season of Roseanne (I had downloaded it off my Tivo).. and have watched a couple of eps of The Connors so far..

I think I actually like(d) Murphy Brown a TINY bit more, but both shows (including The Connors) have been *EXCELLENT* continuations of shows, rather than just trying to do the reunion movie thing, which basically never worked (even though I am a sucker for them). In other words, in both cases, it was just like (as I said in the Murphy Brown thread) that we didn't get to watch along during the years they were off, but their lives continued, and now we get to watch again.

Also, I wasn't sure if it would be as entertaining without Roseanne (despite her idiocy in real life), but The Connors has been surprisingly good so far.. They also did reasonably continue on things FROM the first season (e.g. the pills she hid in the thing in the freezer, the Muslim family across the street)..


----------



## Mikeguy (Jul 28, 2005)

I saw a summary of the year in television today, and "Roseanne" had the highest ratings of any series show this year, including TBBT (which was number 3, I believe). Pretty amazing--and big $.


----------

