Roseanne: Aftermath

[CherryAmes]

I think the problem for people working in that industry right now would be even if they don't have a problem with her bigotry, racism and general batshit craziness is they'd be worried about committing to a job with a person as unstable as she is.   The reboot ended up lasting 8 weeks.  If I were a writer or set designer or whoever I'd only take a Roseanne related job if I couldn't get anything else!

Edited June 9, 2018 by CherryAmes

[break21]

TMZ says the network is trying to figure out how much Roseanne owns of the show before moving forward.  I personally think there will a backlash about continuing the show without her.  Darlene isn't a strong enough character to center a show around.  Roseanne was the show.  Nearly every episode centered around her.  I'd just end it.   It was over when Wanda Sykes walked.  Every writer on that show would have followed her out the door.  When you lose your writing staff you are screwed.  So they didn't have a choice but to fire her, but I wouldn't even attempt to bring it back without her.

 

http://www.tmz.com/2018/06/09/roseanne-reboot-major-problem-hang-up/

[peacheslatour]

Roseanne is radioactive. I don't think anyone in the creative community wants anything to do with her.

[Milburn Stone]

13 minutes ago, break21 said:

TMZ says the network is trying to figure out how much Roseanne owns of the show before moving forward.  I personally think there will a backlash about continuing the show without her. 

Which will be as nothing compared to the backlash about continuing the show with her.

[break21]

13 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

Which will be as nothing compared to the backlash about continuing the show with her.

Truth.  They can't win right now.  I'd just end it and appreciate it for what it was.

[CherryAmes]

1 hour ago, Milburn Stone said:

Which will be as nothing compared to the backlash about continuing the show with her.

For sure.  They've got a lot more kudos than kicks for doing what they did.  They have the high road right now.  If they turn around and  negotiate something with Roseanne now they're going to look really really bad.  I think they're smart enough to know that.

Edited June 9, 2018 by CherryAmes

[Mmmfloorpie]

11 hours ago, Neiman said:

I think it would be great if they could pick up some of the writers from The Middle to work on Roseanne's show.  It was obvious at times that the ones creating lines for Frankie Heck were inspired by Roseanne.  I hope the network releases the show so it can be picked up elsewhere.  

I would watch parts of The Middle after Roseanne. 

The original Roseanne was effortless. All the dialogue seemed natural. You bought them as a real family.

The Middle was the exact opposite. Every line was so archly written. Rapid fire witty one liner after witty one liner. It's like they were just reciting the lines from cue cards off camera and then throw in a quirky little smirk at the end of each sentance. Other than physical resemblance, I didn't find them to be a family whatsoever. Every one was a weird little character on their own private island.

[ketose]

13 hours ago, Mmmfloorpie said:

I would watch parts of The Middle after Roseanne. 

The original Roseanne was effortless. All the dialogue seemed natural. You bought them as a real family.

The Middle was the exact opposite. Every line was so archly written. Rapid fire witty one liner after witty one liner. It's like they were just reciting the lines from cue cards off camera and then throw in a quirky little smirk at the end of each sentance. Other than physical resemblance, I didn't find them to be a family whatsoever. Every one was a weird little character on their own private island.

That's a good point. While Frankie was the narrator on The Middle, the other characters had most of the stories. Roseanne was about the increasingly unlikely events in Roseanne's life.

[Neiman]

38 minutes ago, ketose said:

That's a good point. While Frankie was the narrator on The Middle, the other characters had most of the stories. Roseanne was about the increasingly unlikely events in Roseanne's life.

Still there are similarities in the one-liners/dialogue from Roseanne and Frankie.  

I hope Roseanne's able to negotiate a new season outside of ABC.  Interesting how some polls are saying most viewers will pass on "Roseanne" without Roseanne.  

Edited June 10, 2018 by Neiman

[snarkylady]

Would the show be able to continue (sans Rosanne) if she gave up all rights to any future earnings from the show?  Obviously lawyers would have to put together an ironclad agreement but if that were to take place could it be interpreted as "restitution"? 

I do think it would be fair that if reruns of the original version were shown that she should get whatever her previously agreed upon compensation was. 

Perhaps viewers would look more kindly on the reboot if they knew Rosanne was not making anything from it at all. 

[snarkylady]

As a follow up to my own post.....Roseanne would have to agree that she could not bring a lawsuit against anyone involved with the show.  In addition to everything else that could give creators and writers an opportunity to have the characters make scathing remarks about her.  

Have her kidnapped and no one wanting to pay the ransom.  Have her incarcerated in a foreign country and "the president" (no names) unwilling to negotiate her release.  Have her overseas on a foreign mission working for Valerie Jarrett.  Make her the ambassador to a Muslim country. 

Might pay to look at Charlie Sheen / Two And a Half Men as a precedent. 

[UYI]

On 6/5/2018 at 12:07 PM, Mmmfloorpie said:

Is Sandy Duncan still alive? Be funny to cast her in the first episode of season 2 without Roseanne. Throw in a Jason Bateman cameo with his girlfriend Valerie Harper. Boys fall for women just like their mothers afterall.

 

I mentioned in a past post here in this thread that she's still alive and 72 years old now. ;) 

[ari333]

I am done. I wont watch anything she is on.

[peacheslatour]

10 minutes ago, ari333 said:

I am done. I wont watch anything she is on.

Same here. Basta.

[break21]

4 hours ago, Neiman said:

Still there are similarities in the one-liners/dialogue from Roseanne and Frankie.  

I hope Roseanne's able to negotiate a new season outside of ABC.  Interesting how some polls are saying most viewers will pass on "Roseanne" without Roseanne.  

The Producers of The Middle wrote several episodes of the original Roseanne.  Interesting as well, Joss Whedon was on the original writing staff until she fired him.

[KoBnR]

On 6/9/2018 at 10:33 AM, Neiman said:

I hope the network releases the show so it can be picked up elsewhere.  

Agreed. While I don't condone what Roseanne said... it was technically free speech. I honestly don't think the show should have ended over this. Just seems too bizarre. Like the media used the opportunity to use Roseanne as a patsy for whatever reason. Just like Kathy Griffin. Hopefully it will die down and someone will pick the show up after realizing it's nothing Without Roseanne.

[chocolatine]

6 minutes ago, KoBnR said:

While I don't condone what Roseanne said... it was technically free speech. I honestly don't think the show should have ended over this. Just seems too bizarre.

Free speech goes both ways. Roseanne is free to say whatever she wants, and ABC is free to cancel her show if what she says offends them. Both parties have exercised their rights.

[CherryAmes]

2 hours ago, KoBnR said:

Like the media used the opportunity to use Roseanne as a patsy for whatever reason.

The problem with this interpretation of what happened is that they made the decision to end the show before the media had really had much chance to run with the story.  I doubt they would end a hit show as quickly as they did because the media covered it for a couple of hours.

[Bastet]

Free speech refers to the First Amendment prohibition against the government suppressing or punishing most speech.  It does not mean the speaker will be immune any consequences; the idea is for the government to keep its hands off most speech, letting it go out into the "marketplace of ideas" where it will be accepted or rejected by those who hear/read it based on its value.  Nobody arrested Roseanne for her racist remark; she, a private citizen, posted what she wanted to post, and ABC, a private company, fired her for it.  No free speech rights were violated. 

[TheOtherOne]

‘Roseanne’ Spinoff Update: Both Sides Remain Hopeful As Decision Time Nears

While Barr has a creative credit and ownership on the original series, the question is whether it would carry over to any spinoffs. If she was creator or co-creator of the mothership series, that is pretty unavoidable, but her specific credit could make it possible.

The opening credits for the revival (which mirror those for the original series, read: Roseanne is created by Matt Williams, based on a character created by Roseanne Barr (images on left). If Williams is considered the sole creator of the series, with Barr only credited for originating the character that became Roseanne Conner, if a follow-up series does not feature Roseanne Conner, one could make an argument that Barr is not entitled to profits.

However, things are not that simple — after all Roseanne, the series, exists because of the character created by Barr. The complexity of the issue explains the prolonged legal review and delayed pickup decision. The case has to be iron-clad as a new series without Barr would likely trigger a lawsuit by the comedian.

[TheOtherOne]

Roseanne ‘seriously considering’ forgoing profits from potential spinoff

[CherryAmes]

If she's genuinely sorry this is certainly a very clear way of demonstrating that.  I still think rebooting the reboot is a terrible idea but I admit I would at least give it a try, something I wasn't prepared to do when Roseanne was on air or otherwise profiting.

[Browncoat]

The only way, imo, for her to "make restitution" is not to benefit in any way (financially or otherwise) from the reboot of the reboot.  So if she was serious in her tweet about restitution, this would be the way to do it.

[possibilities]

It has to be clear she's not coming back, though. No "she disappeared for a while but suddenly returns" or "she died--nope, that was just a dream" or anything like that.

[chocolatine]

6 hours ago, TheOtherOne said:

Roseanne ‘seriously considering’ forgoing profits from potential spinoff

If she and ABC really manage to pull that off, without any stealth ways for Roseanne to still profit, I would be happy to accept that as a resolution. While the hatred and ugliness that she put out into the world can never be completely undone, I do believe there should be a way for people who have made such mistakes to make amends, through actions and not just words.

[break21]

18 hours ago, CherryAmes said:

If she's genuinely sorry this is certainly a very clear way of demonstrating that.  I still think rebooting the reboot is a terrible idea but I admit I would at least give it a try, something I wasn't prepared to do when Roseanne was on air or otherwise profiting.

I think this re-boot is a terrible idea and will fold pretty fast if it ever gets aired.  I think ABC must be thinking they have to pay Goodman, Metcalf and Gilbert $300,000 an episode for the season if it gets made or not, so why not at least try to get some of that back by airing some new episodes and seeing what happens?

[Gigglepuff]

21 hours ago, possibilities said:

It has to be clear she's not coming back, though. No "she disappeared for a while but suddenly returns" or "she died--nope, that was just a dream" or anything like that.

I don't like the idea of another reboot, but if it happens, it must be clear she's not coming back at all. I'm a bit suspicious of Roseanne and whatever she says and/or agrees to though, this whole situation reminds me a bit of the Duggars. I thought they were supposed to disappear, but then the sisters got their show, "Counting On," and slowly JimBoob and Michelle, and then Anna made their way back onto air. No way is Joshie not profiting from their appearances and that sickens me. I know the Roseanne situation is different, but I don't trust her and I think if she could weasel her way back, she would. 

[tessaray]

This is not the place to debate whether or not Roseanne's offenses were been blown out of proportion.  We all have our opinions but pushing back at other people for theirs violates the "Be Civil" rule.

[TheOtherOne]

‘Roseanne’ Spinoff Update: More Progress As Deal Could Come Within A Week

 

I hear Barr is expected to sign an agreement that would remove her from the potential spinoff and prevent her from suing over it. Terms of the agreements are unclear but it may involve a one-time payment from production company Carsey-Werner to Barr in exchange of her relinquishing any rights so she won’t be entitled to any profits from the spinoff.

...

With its conditions of no Barr involvement in the new series met, I hear ABC is likely to proceed with the spinoff. The network and the producers already had been brainstorming titles with several contenders in play. While Darlene was a moniker that had been circulated early on when rumors first surfaced about a possible new series centered on the character played by co-star/executive producer Sara Gilbert, I hear another name that is under consideration is The Conners, which would keep the strong ties to the original series without any Roseanne references while also underscoring the show’s family and ensemble nature.

[break21]

8 hours ago, TheOtherOne said:

‘Roseanne’ Spinoff Update: More Progress As Deal Could Come Within A Week

 

 

IMO, "The Conners" is a better title than "Darlene".

[Jacqs]

As long as they recast Harris with someone who isn't just a tosser with a SAG card, I'm for "The Conners".

[snarkylady]

Let's assume they go forward with "The Connors"......my guess is that the first episode will have a huge audience with news stories following the premiere "Roseanne not needed for big ratings", "Roseanne vastly improved without her in it", "Watched the Connors, did not miss Roseanne".   Hopefully Roseanne Barr's legal agreement will prohibit her from making any comments about the show.

They will need to make some changes to hold the audience.  Some ideas: a new character played by a beloved actor/actress -- not a love interest for Dan but someone he would spend time with; as said above a recast of the Harris role; Jackie returns to her earlier portrayal and another new character is introduced as a love interest for her, he, or she, brings stability to the family but does not get along with at least one Connor adding some conflict and humor; during the "hiatus" Becky has gone back to school, earned a degree and has a much better life; a few visits from David but he and Darlene do not get back together, instead he is more involved with his children; much more of the old Darlene's sass and sarcasm; Leon returns for a number of episodes; Jerry and Andy return home.   My ideas don't show much imagination or creativity...that's where the writers come in.  Casting of Jerry and Andy would be very important.

What I do not want to see:  more Bev, Crystal or Nancy.  I don't care one way or the other about DJ but his wife and daughter could provide some interesting story lines.

I would be surprised if the show continued for more than one re-reboot season.  By the very last episode I would like to see all of their lives improved.  Final scene is Dan looking at his family.

[Milburn Stone]

If a show called "The Conners" must exist, I hope Roseanne Conner's disappearance will be explained by her doing time in a far-off Federal prison for committing hate crimes.

[SomeTameGazelle]

6 hours ago, break21 said:

IMO, "The Conners" is a better title than "Darlene".

Depends on the nature of the show. If Darlene is the only protagonist and the other characters are important only as they relate to Darlene, then "Darlene" would seem to be more appropriate than "The Conners". From a marketing point of view, if they think that Darlene is the biggest draw and audiences be more likely to watch a show called "Darlene", then it would make sense to go with "Darlene". But making the show depend on one character and one actor has risks as well as rewards.

"The Conners" is more general but not everyone in the family is actually a Conner. They could go with a more abstract title but I don't know if there is anything obvious that would attract existing and new fans.

The storytelling of the reboot wasn't strong enough for me to really care about a continuation of the series so I think they might as well let it go and put their efforts into something new. If they think there were too many loose ends, why not a one-off special to wrap everything up?

[ketose]

This is beginning to remind me of "Kevin Can Wait." First, they tried to resurrect something, then the retooled it, then it was cancelled for good.

I watched about half of the new Rosanne episodes, then figured I would catch up later. I doubt a second season, sans controversy, would have seen very good ratings.

[Milburn Stone]

From Vulture today:

Quote

Per THR, Barr has agreed that a spinoff, should it happen, can continue forward as long as the series retains her appropriate credit and grants her “substantial fees and backend on any spinoff.”

Edited June 17, 2018 by Milburn Stone

[Browncoat]

Maybe when she said she wanted to make restitution she meant restitution to herself.

[ketose]

The THR story is describing negotiations where Roseanne Barr would get a one-time "go away" payment instead of back end compensation. It kind of sounds like a lump sum vs. an annuity. ABC is trying to pay off Rosanne to tell people she won't profit from the show, but in a way where Roseanne will end up with a similar amount of money.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/abcs-roseanne-spinoff-hinges-barr-relinquishing-fee-1120723

Edited June 17, 2018 by ketose

[Crs97]

No.  Her getting a lump sum rather than periodic payments is not the solution.  Let the show die and hire the crew on other things.  Please.

[TheOtherOne]

3 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

From Vulture today:

Unfortunately the Vulture story propagates the misinformation that Barr received a full "created by" credit on the most recent season (before the season began, she gave this interview to EW saying she would finally be credited as the creator of the show, not just "based on the character created by...", because she's full of shit, and several news outlets keep spreading it, even though the credits on the actual show remained as they appeared on the original show.

 

[ketose]

The character created by Roseanne Barr was... Roseanne.

When a stand up comic gets a TV show, it's frequently about their act, then a show is constructed around it. If it becomes a hit, the star gets more creative control, which is why Roseanne became more bizarre every season. But yeah, her show was written by a team of writers who created Dan, Darlene, Jackie and the others.

[possibilities]

I don't care about the details of what the credit looks like. They need to stick with their original decision to cancel it and not let her profit in any way from anything they do going forward. Otherwise, this was all just a lie, and they are basically using the firing and cancellation as a PR stunt.  Sweet deal for her! She can spew vile things ad nauseum, and there are no consequences except for no longer needing to show up on set. It's the ultimate reward for her ego and her behavior, that she gets all this attention and basically holds everyone hostage and they will pay her for the privilege? NO.

It's pathetic.

[CelticBlackCat]

A pay off to Roseanne Barr to continue this thing in any incarnation is wrong.  ABC was so quick to cancel the entire show, they need to 'suck it up buttercups' and 'put a fork in it,' to use two cliches.  If they want to get their money's worth of having to have already paid the rest of the actors such as Goodman, Metcalf and Gilbert, they should create an entire new show, have the actors depict new characters, and run it for one season.  If there are contractual requirements that call for the Roseanne characters to remain Dan Conner, Jackie and Darlene, then they can spinoff into the same character, without ever mentioning Roseanne, as if she never existed.

[ketose]

6 hours ago, CelticBlackCat said:

A pay off to Roseanne Barr to continue this thing in any incarnation is wrong.  ABC was so quick to cancel the entire show, they need to 'suck it up buttercups' and 'put a fork in it,' to use two cliches.  If they want to get their money's worth of having to have already paid the rest of the actors such as Goodman, Metcalf and Gilbert, they should create an entire new show, have the actors depict new characters, and run it for one season.  If there are contractual requirements that call for the Roseanne characters to remain Dan Conner, Jackie and Darlene, then they can spinoff into the same character, without ever mentioning Roseanne, as if she never existed.

My vote is for John Goodman to reprise his role in a reboot of the cancelled too soon 1999 Scifi romance "Now and Again."

[llewis823]

Looks like Roseanne was even barred (sorry, pun intended) from the front page of Previously TV forums under "R"...used to be able to choose it from the front page, but it disappeared from the R's about a week ago or so. So don't know if it's the chicken or the egg - did posts drop off because "out of sight, out of mind" or did the word "Roseanne" disappear from the front page under R's because posting dropped off first?

Edited June 20, 2018 by llewis823

[tessaray]

3 hours ago, llewis823 said:

Looks like Roseanne was even barred (sorry, pun intended) from the front page of Previously TV forums under "R"...used to be able to choose it from the front page, but it disappeared from the R's about a week ago or so. So don't know if it's the chicken or the egg - did posts drop off because "out of sight, out of mind" or did the word "Roseanne" disappear from the front page under R's because posting dropped off first?

My PTV bookmark goes straight to my custom forum list but I just checked and Roseanne is still under R if I peek at all shows, and on the main show list with all the colored blocks.  If there was some kind of "hot" list, I'm sure it dropped off  because the number of posts in the forum has dropped precipitously. 

[peacheslatour]

It's still there in mine.

[Bastet]

Maybe it just moved from on-air to off-air. 

[Fellaway]

Like llewis823, I have to go to the R page to access the Roseanne forums.  It hasn't been on the main page for me for at least a week.

[tessaray]

It might be time for a bug report, as I can't seem to make it disappear.

http://forums.previously.tv/forum/698-bugs/