Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Roseanne: Aftermath

tessaray

By tessaray
in Roseanne [V]

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 605
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

AgentRXS
AgentRXS

I do wish they would continue the reboot without her as a big Fuck You. I'd watch the hell out of that. Let Roseanne Conner die of an overdose or not wake up out of surgery. Everyone has such good che

Keywestclubkid
Keywestclubkid

I’d  watch 

debbie311
debbie311

ABC canceling Roseanne has reaffirmed my faith that people can still do the honorable thing.  Lately I have been beginning to wonder.

Posted Images

Jillybean

Jillybean

From the ABC Facebook page:

BREAKING: “The Conners," a spinoff of “Roseanne,” will premiere in fall 2018 on ABC. 

The show will have 10 episodes and Roseanne Barr will have no financial or creative involvement in the new series, according to ABC Network.

https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/roseanne-spinoff-connors-premier-fall-abc/story?id=56075443

  • Love 7
Bastet

Bastet

I think it will do okay, but not as well as season ten; I think a lot of people will tune in for the first episode (although, sadly, there will probably be a segment of the season ten audience that boycotts it because they feel Roseanne's ouster was unjust), but in the end I don't think season eleven will come close to finishing as the number one scripted comedy like season ten did.  And that's fine - who knows if season eleven as planned would have sustained those ratings, because they dropped off over the course of season ten - but it's going to give Roseanne and her minions something to crow about.

While the show was still great in season five, Lecy's absence was a significant change to the dynamic and the show just wasn't as great as it had been in season four.  Sara's limited appearances had an effect, too, but that's harder to separate from the fact the series was simply long in the tooth by then; Lecy left when it was at its apogee.  It's so much about the dynamic of the core cast, that removing one is a big deal.  The Conners without Becky was one thing.  Without Roseanne?  We'll see how the spinoff does. 

  • Love 6
StaceyNotStacie

StaceyNotStacie

I’ve always enjoyed the ensemble cast as a whole, so I’ll give this a chance. Becky and Darlene were the highlight of the last season, so I’d like to see where their characters go from here. There’s a lot of potential with the characters. Assuming that they kill Roseanne’s character off, I’m curious as to how the other characters will handle things since she was such a dominant force in their lives). I could see good material for John and Laurie (the widower and the recently reconciled sister who didn’t talk to her for about a year), as well as Lecy (Becky was just moving on from Mark’s death and now has to deal with Roseanne). 

  • Love 15
AntiBeeSpray

AntiBeeSpray

11 minutes ago, Stacey1014 said:

I’ve always enjoyed the ensemble cast as a whole, so I’ll give this a chance. Becky and Darlene were the highlight of the last season, so I’d like to see where their characters go from here. There’s a lot of potential with the characters. Assuming that they kill Roseanne’s character off, I’m curious as to how the other characters will handle things since she was such a dominant force in their lives). I could see good material for John and Laurie (the widower and the recently reconciled sister who didn’t talk to her for about a year), as well as Lecy (Becky was just moving on from Mark’s death and now has to deal with Roseanne). 

That's pretty much where I'm at with this. Glad that she's not getting one red cent from it.

  • Love 8
mythoughtis

mythoughtis

14 minutes ago, ketose said:

They're already going to lose the "fan" base who was watching because Roseanne said pro-Trump things. I'm not sure who they'll get in exchange.

People who are happy Roseanne was forced out and want to show their support? 

Me, I’ll watch because I like the characters.  Laurie, John and Sara! Lacey could actually get some good  character development too!  Michael still needs a limited role because he’s just not talented( but is a wonderful human being).   Maybe J. Galecki will be on more. 

  • Love 16
Rap541

Rap541

Quote

I think it will do okay, but not as well as season ten; I think a lot of people will tune in for the first episode (although, sadly, there will probably be a segment of the season ten audience that boycotts it because they feel Roseanne's ouster was unjust), but in the end I don't think season eleven will come close to finishing as the number one scripted comedy like season ten did.

If they have John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf on board, give them their heads as they say in books about horses, and let the spice flow.

The core actors of Goodman, Metcalf, and Gilbert, coupled with writing that doesn't appease someone's ego? They might strike gold.

And it might suck, can't deny it but there's talent there.....

  • Love 18
mbutterfly

mbutterfly

1 hour ago, mythoughtis said:

People who are happy Roseanne was forced out and want to show their support? 

Me, I’ll watch because I like the characters.  Laurie, John and Sara! Lacey could actually get some good  character development too!  Michael still needs a limited role because he’s just not talented( but is a wonderful human being).   Maybe J. Galecki will be on more. 

I will too. I thought it was a great premise, and I'm enormously fond of Laurie, John and Sara. I'm looking forward to it. 

  • Love 8
SmithW6079

SmithW6079

2 hours ago, Jillybean said:

From the ABC Facebook page:

BREAKING: “The Conners," a spinoff of “Roseanne,” will premiere in fall 2018 on ABC. 

The show will have 10 episodes and Roseanne Barr will have no financial or creative involvement in the new series, according to ABC Network.

https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/roseanne-spinoff-connors-premier-fall-abc/story?id=56075443

Meh. I might tune in on the first episode, hoping that Roseanne Connor died.

1 hour ago, AntiBeeSpray said:

That's pretty much where I'm at with this. Glad that she's not getting one red cent from it.

I have my doubts that Roseanne Barr won't profit in some way.

  • Love 2
AgentRXS

AgentRXS

I think the show will hold up fine. Metcalf and Goodman have good chemistry.  Sara grew up under Roseanne's wing and did an ok job of reflecting middle class life in the reboot. I expect this season to be heavy drama since the characters will be reeling from Roseanne's presumed death, but I think with the right team of writers, it could start to resemble early seasons of the old show.

I find Whitney Cummings and Wanda Skyes painfully unfunny so good riddance to them. It would be funny if all the old writers that Roseanne fired back in the day all came back to write this season, just to stick it to her. Even better if Booker flies back into town for Roseanne's funeral and catches up with Jackie in a episode or two.

I really want this season to succeed because I can't stomach watching/hearing about Roseanne being a smug asshole about its cancellation. I don't want her to win.

  • Love 12
ButterQueen

ButterQueen

3 hours ago, Jillybean said:

From the ABC Facebook page:

BREAKING: “The Conners," a spinoff of “Roseanne,” will premiere in fall 2018 on ABC. 

The show will have 10 episodes and Roseanne Barr will have no financial or creative involvement in the new series, according to ABC Network.

https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/roseanne-spinoff-connors-premier-fall-abc/story?id=56075443

Yay!!!

  • Love 2
CelticBlackCat

CelticBlackCat

2 hours ago, AntiBeeSpray said:

That's pretty much where I'm at with this. Glad that she's not getting one red cent from it.

Roseanne Barr and ABC came up with some sort of settlement.  They must have paid her off to go away and let them get their money's worth out of the actors who already got paid for Reboot Season 2.  They are spinning it that Roseanne agreed to the settlement to keep the 200 people who lost their jobs with ABC's cancellation employed.  Since she did state that she was sorry about the consequences, I'd say it's probably true that she feels that way.

Roseanne Barr still owns the rights to the character she created, Roseanne Conner.  She just will not have any input, writing or otherwise, in the spinoff called The Conners nor will she gain financially from the spinoff.  This is not to say Roseanne Barr cannot use her own character somewhere else sometime in the future.

It is not known yet how Roseanne will be written out of the spinoff show.  She may not be dead as so many people are hoping.

  • Love 1
break21

break21

IMO, this will be a disaster, although I realize they were already paying Goodman, Metcalf and Gilbert for the year ,so why not?

Roseanne was the show - Goodman is a great secondary character but he's never had to head-line a tv show.  Gilbert is weak.  They should have just ended it.

If they kill her off it will hurt syndication (which will come back after time).  I just hate to see a great show go down in flames like this is doing.  It is going to be one big mess.

  • Love 6
ChicksDigScars

ChicksDigScars

(edited)
14 hours ago, Gigglepuff said:

Yeah, and that base is already expressing their outrage on Twitter. 

Screw 'em. The show was a hit before politics had anything to do with it. It was NOT even a conservative show in the reboot. ROSEANNE, and by extension, Dan,  were right wing voters. But the rest were not, and for every pro-Trump comment made on the show, Jackie or Darlene had a sarcastic lefty retort.  The writing team were liberal. They showed both sides. 

 

Goodman, Gilbert and Metcalf are popular and well known enough to carry a series. Hell, look at most of the other sitcoms. They've more familiar than half the actors and actresses on other shows.  The only thing I worry about is if ABC and NBC decide to have a This Is Us/Conners show down. 

Edited by ChicksDigScars
  • Love 11
llewis823

llewis823

(edited)

My main gripe about the "aftermath" is that I miss the reruns of the original run of Roseanne. I would like to see it return to the TVLand, MEtv, etc. rerun-type stations. Roseanne is probably my favorite sitcom of all time because Roseanne and Dan act like my husband and I  with each other and their kids. And "Roseanne Connor" never said anything specifically political or politically incorrect on the original run of the show.  (sometimes rude and sometimes controversial, but hey, haven't we all?)

I would watch those reruns over and over. It was like "home". (My adult daughter feels the same way.) If I was cleaning the house on a Saturday morning, I'd listen as I cleaned. If there was nothing else on, I'd turn on Roseanne reruns. But if I want to do that now, I'll have to go out and buy the DVD set. (I do think it will eventually come back on as reruns though - I mean even Cosby is on in reruns on at least one channel I've seen while searching the guide - and he is a convicted rapist. And that being said - I still like the character of Cliff Huxtable too.) I enjoyed the new Roseanne reboot but it's demise is not what bothers me so much - it's the reruns being pulled off the air that makes me sad.

Does it matter to me what Roseanne Barr said? Nope. Just like what DeNiro, Samantha whatever-her-name-is and Henry Fonda said doesn't matter to me either. I may not agree with some/any of it, but they are entertainers. They make a living off of pretending to be other people, telling stories on screen. They are not experts in anything except pretending and telling stories. So why would I care - or even take into consideration anything they may say as a "regular person"? I'm sure if asked, they'd feel the same about my opinions!

Now keep in mind - I have not once mentioned any political candidate or condoned/criticized anything said by any celebrity in this post.  So please don't blast me as being on one side or another. I have purposely kept all those feelings/opinions out this forum in this post and in others I've made. Thanks for letting me vent.

Edited by llewis823
  • Love 12
mythoughtis

mythoughtis

3 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

I want to know the nature of the "settlement" that allowed The Conners to go on. Specifically, I want to know Roseanne's lump-sum payday in lieu of profits going forward. I hope we get some reporting on this.

.  She had rights to the show, they bought them from her.  That’s the way things had to be done. The fact that she opened her mouth and inserted her foot, or showed her true colors, doesn’t negate contract law or ownership rights.  She’s off the show and we get to see future seasons of tne Conners.  I’m ok with the process. 

  • Love 7
Milburn Stone

Milburn Stone

(edited)
59 minutes ago, mythoughtis said:

.  She had rights to the show, they bought them from her.  That’s the way things had to be done. The fact that she opened her mouth and inserted her foot, or showed her true colors, doesn’t negate contract law or ownership rights.  She’s off the show and we get to see future seasons of tne Conners.  I’m ok with the process. 

Well, actually, that's not the way things had to be done. Because not bringing back The Conners was an option. 

I wonder if Tom Werner had some leverage that forced ABC's hand. Like, "You contracted with me for a second season. You have the right to fire Roseanne for cause. But you don't have the right to abrogate your agreement with me, because I didn't give you cause." Naturally ABC could have negotiated a buy-out with him, but it might have been tremendously expensive.

Edited by Milburn Stone
  • Love 3
jsbt

jsbt

(edited)

They took pitches on the spinoff. They refused to go forward without Roseanne being totally cut out financially. They weren't forced. It was a choice.

I think the show's longterm chances are 50/50. There's many of these attempts that have flopped, but there's also several sitcoms - almost all already mentioned - that have flourished without a key star. That being said, none of them save Archie Bunker's Place had this kind of deep bench of talent, multiple remaining popular characters - a very strong full ensemble, not just one or two people like Carroll O'Connor and a bunch of new folks - and longstanding goodwill with a mass audience. And ABP, while far from genius, lasted another 3-4 seasons.

Edited by jsbt
  • Love 3
Milburn Stone

Milburn Stone

(edited)
1 hour ago, mythoughtis said:

That is true. I didn’t think to add the phrase ‘in order to bring the  show back’.  I thought that was understood. 

It kind of was, but since my view is that it's morally compromised to bring the show back (because doing so requires a payday for Roseanne), I didn't want to lose track of the fact that ABC did have a way to avoid doing business with Roseanne.

Edited by Milburn Stone
  • Love 2
ketose

ketose

If Roseanne still owns "Roseanne Connor," can she produce a show for another network? Like she could be dead and reincarnated a la Drop Dead Diva.

 

 

16 hours ago, SpiritSong said:

LOL  There's also After Mash, and the worst of them all: Archie Bunker's Place.

I'll give the reboot of the reboot a look.

Worst might actually be "Fish."

 

3 hours ago, llewis823 said:

My main gripe about the "aftermath" is that I miss the reruns of the original run of Roseanne. I would like to see it return to the TVLand, MEtv, etc. rerun-type stations. Roseanne is probably my favorite sitcom of all time because Roseanne and Dan act like my husband and I  with each other and their kids. And "Roseanne Connor" never said anything specifically political or politically incorrect on the original run of the show.  (sometimes rude and sometimes controversial, but hey, haven't we all?)

I would watch those reruns over and over. It was like "home". (My adult daughter feels the same way.) If I was cleaning the house on a Saturday morning, I'd listen as I cleaned. If there was nothing else on, I'd turn on Roseanne reruns. But if I want to do that now, I'll have to go out and buy the DVD set. (I do think it will eventually come back on as reruns though - I mean even Cosby is on in reruns on at least one channel I've seen while searching the guide - and he is a convicted rapist. And that being said - I still like the character of Cliff Huxtable too.) I enjoyed the new Roseanne reboot but it's demise is not what bothers me so much - it's the reruns being pulled off the air that makes me sad.

Does it matter to me what Roseanne Barr said? Nope. Just like what DeNiro, Samantha whatever-her-name-is and Henry Fonda said doesn't matter to me either. I may not agree with some/any of it, but they are entertainers. They make a living off of pretending to be other people, telling stories on screen. They are not experts in anything except pretending and telling stories. So why would I care - or even take into consideration anything they may say as a "regular person"? I'm sure if asked, they'd feel the same about my opinions!

Now keep in mind - I have not once mentioned any political candidate or condoned/criticized anything said by any celebrity in this post.  So please don't blast me as being on one side or another. I have purposely kept all those feelings/opinions out this forum in this post and in others I've made. Thanks for letting me vent.

If you have Roku, there are free channels on there that still carry the original.

  • Love 1
katie9918

katie9918

7 hours ago, ChicksDigScars said:

Screw 'em. The show was a hit before politics had anything to do with it. It was NOT even a conservative show in the reboot. ROSEANNE, and by extension, Dan,  were right wing voters. But the rest were not, and for every pro-Trump comment made on the show, Jackie or Darlene had a sarcastic lefty retort.  The writing team were liberal. They showed both sides. 

 

Goodman, Gilbert and Metcalf are popular and well known enough to carry a series. Hell, look at most of the other sitcoms. They've more familiar than half the actors and actresses on other shows.  The only thing I worry about is if ABC and NBC decide to have a This Is Us/Conners show down. 

I agree with you. 

 

I'm still trying to figure out exactly where, other than in the 10th season premiere, politics had anything to do with anything unless you were sitting on your couch with a checklist of political issues and just looking for it. 

 

I just sat back and enjoyed watching the Conners being back. I didn't feel as if right- or left-wing views were being shoved at me and I was shocked to see how many people felt differently. Then I realized that I simply don't care enough about politics to be looking for hidden meanings in every little moment of my life. 

  • Love 2
Twilight Man

Twilight Man

18 hours ago, SpiritSong said:

LOL  There's also After Mash, and the worst of them all: Archie Bunker's Place.

Ha Ha Ha Yes; I just wanted to do the ol' "Rule of Three" gag. but, yes, there are at least "a few" more

(How about "The Golden Palace", anyone, anyone)
and that is just counting the times where they "created a new show" ------

There are still an endless number of shows where they replaced a main cast member and kept the show going,

sometimes in the first season (Charlie's Angels, A Different World), sometimes after several seasons (Scrubs, The Equalizer, Profiler, etc.)

8 hours ago, UYI said:

After Mash was only on for one season though (1983-1984), while ABP was on for four (1979-1983).

So the comparison is somewhat lopsided. :P

Ha Ha Ha --- and (I think) Mayberry R.F.D. (which I mentioned) was on for four seasons as well!!!!

and (once again) several of the shows that I mentioned that replaced one of their leads in the very first season

(The Hogan Family, A Different World, Charlie's Angels)

managed to continue for several more seasons.

CherryAmes

CherryAmes

Also 8 Simple Rules carried on for another season and a half after the death of John Ritter.  That episode where his character died is still one of the most touching and believable "character death on a sitcom" episodes for me.  The show kind of lost it's way after Ritter's death but it was still better than most of what was on TV at the time.  Which may help "The Connors" stay on the air for at least a face saving couple of seasons!

  • Love 1
Twilight Man

Twilight Man

22 hours ago, ketose said:

If Roseanne still owns "Roseanne Connor," can she produce a show for another network? Like she could be dead and reincarnated a la Drop Dead Diva.

So, I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this show yet (with all the other ones we are mentioning) ------

in the summer - fall of 1980, Suzanne Somers left "Three's Company".

When she tried immediately starring in a show on another network, ABC sued her and the other network.

(The network heads were very angry at Somers and her contract dispute).

Despite the fact that Somers' new show and character was not Chrissy Show, ABC claimed that the character was "similar" to Chrissy,

and the other network did not want to deal with the litigation, so they just scraped her show and went elsewhere.

Everything seems to be (somewhat) amicable so far between ABC and Barr,

and I clearly do not know if the status quo has changed much since 1980,

but if Barr tries to create a "dueling" show, ABC might challenge her.

bichonblitz

bichonblitz

(edited)

Regarding "The Connors", it will never work. John Goodman was weak in the reboot, Sara Gilbert boring as usual and Laurie Metcalf, the most talented actor in the bunch was reduced to a pathetic script making the Jackie character an idiot loser with the worst lines of all of them. I have no idea why she would even consider doing "The Connors". She's busy with other work and recently won a Tony award.  As far as Johnny Galecki, he's not going to be seen any more than he already has been. He doesn't have to. He has a hit show of his own. 

Edited by bichonblitz
  • Love 4
peacheslatour

peacheslatour

1 hour ago, bichonblitz said:

Regarding "The Connors", it will never work. John Goodman was weak in the reboot, Sara Gilbert boring as usual and Laurie Metcalf, the most talented actor in the bunch was reduced to a pathetic script making the Jackie character an idiot loser with the worst lines of all of them. I have no idea why she would even consider doing "The Connors". She's busy with other work and recently won a Tony award.  As far as Johnny Galecki, he's not going to be seen any more than he already has been. He doesn't have to. He has a hit show of his own. 

I tend to agree with all of your points. But I'll still give it a whirl.

  • Love 3
Crs97

Crs97

Say you aren’t making excuses but then be mad that people aren't buying your excuses -   Check

Make the non-apology of “I’m sorry if people were offended by something they think I said but didn’t really say,” like it’s the listeners’ fault - check

Make yourself the victim with “I’ve lost everything” - check

Play a variation of the “I have minority friends/family so I can’t be racist” card - check

Yep, sounds like the typical apology to me!

 

Regarding “The Connors,” John Goodman is a strong actor who can certainly step his game up if given the right material and motivation.  One might think the paycheck should be ample motivation, but hopefully this mess will wake him up out of whatever funk he was in during the first reboot to knock it out of the park in the second.

  • Love 18
CherryAmes

CherryAmes

(edited)

Not to mention:  Play the antisemitism card - check,

With regard to Goodman and also Laurie Metcalf and everyone associated with this,  I hope that they take on board that there are going to be a lot of people out there hoping that The Connors fails spectacularly.  If that isn't motivation enough to bring their A game I don't know what would be!!

Edited by CherryAmes
  • Love 8
possibilities

possibilities

(edited)

This is not the first time Roseanne has behaved in a vile manner and then gone through a routine of defiance, denial, excuses, then whining and self-pity when there were repercussions. She will try every strategy she can think of, including claiming she has seen the light and/or gotten treatment and/or was possessed by a demon from hell but has since been fully exorcized, until someone decides to bankroll her for another round. If any of it is sincere or real, it only lasts until the next round, so what's the point? It doens't matter to me if she's doing it consciously to be manipulative, or if she's doing it because she's genuinely chaotic and unable to control herself. Either way, I don't want to go along for the ride.

We have a world of people who are talented and interesting and could do something worth paying attention to, without the vileness and the drama alongside.

Edited by possibilities
  • Love 13
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...