Roseanne: Aftermath

[TigerLynx]

44 minutes ago, Neiman said:

I wonder if she has any ownership rights to the characters or show.  

She does.  Any scenario which keeps any of the characters means they will have to pay Roseanne even if she is no longer on the show.

[Camera One]

3 hours ago, ChitChat said:

Roseanne is the central character that the other characters play off of.  They love her, they get mad at her, they makeup, and in the end, they know that the character Roseanne loves them, no matter what twisted way she went about disciplining and taking care of them.  IMO, it doesn't work without her. 

I never watched the original show and only saw this latest season out of curiosity.  To a new viewer, it did feel like everything revolved around Roseanne and she had the biggest presence on the show.  I didn't dislike any of the original characters, but Roseanne seemed to be the most unique one and seemed to get the funnier lines.

I feel badly for all the cast and crew who were excited to continue to work together, so for their sake (and for the original fans who love the supporting characters just as much), I hope something is worked out.

[Browncoat]

Well, if Roseanne has a financial interest in the characters, and they need to change names, Darlene could be Larlene.  Or Lardene.  Or Dardene.   ;)

[Spencer Hastings]

19 minutes ago, Browncoat said:

Well, if Roseanne has a financial interest in the characters, and they need to change names, Darlene could be Larlene.  Or Lardene.  Or Dardene.   ;)

Roseanne just changed all of their names in her book to protect their privacy, so their names have been aliases all along. ;-)

[Kazu]

25 minutes ago, Browncoat said:

Well, if Roseanne has a financial interest in the characters, and they need to change names, Darlene could be Larlene.  Or Lardene.  Or Dardene.   ;)

Becky could be renamed Slut. Per the birth control episode and the most recent episode on the reboot.

7 hours ago, bigskygirl said:

I cannot stand David either. I love the one scene when Dan called David out when he made remarks about Mark. Dan told David Mark was a hard working family man who cares about Becky and is trying to make a good life for the both of them while David sat on his whiny behind judging others.

Mark wasn't mature himself in the beginning.  Dan didn't like him. Mark's maturity came with age and experience. I could see David doing the same, as many people do when they grow up, mature, and gain experience.

[bigskygirl]

16 minutes ago, Kazu said:

Becky could be renamed Slut. Per the birth control episode and the most recent episode on the reboot.

Mark wasn't mature himself in the beginning.  Dan didn't like him. Mark's maturity came with age and experience. I could see David doing the same, as many people do when they grow up, mature, and gain experience.

David ran off and left Darlene to raise their two kids. I would say that is not grown up and being mature.

[Jacqs]

My Dad's first wife abandoned him and their children to join the Children of God cult. Being not grown up and mature is not limited to guys.

[Kazu]

32 minutes ago, bigskygirl said:

David ran off and left Darlene to raise their two kids. I would say that is not grown up and being mature.

I didn't imply that it was. I posted I "could see" him doing the same. He was still a young man at that stage of the series and still had a lot of time to show maturity and growth. Maturity doesn't occur at the age of 18 years or even 21 years of age or with marriage.

Besides, him fleeing and leaving his wife and children behind was explained away as his response to his brother's untimely and I assume, tragic death. Not many of us would do what he did under those circumstances, but plenty of people who grieve over the sudden death of a loved one don't always act rational. They turn to addiction, alcohol, they have affairs, they become depressed to the point they can't function, far too many things to post. It has nothing to do with maturity.

[peacheslatour]

Quote

Becky could be renamed Slut. Per the birth control episode and the most recent episode on the reboot.

 That's a bit much, don't you think?

[SparklesBitch]

2 hours ago, TattleTeeny said:

That has become clear. While I think there is definitely more to the Conners than just Darlene (I'm partial to Becky and Dan) and don't see why a hypothetical show would need to revolve around her when there are so many other strong actors in the cast, I personally have no problem with her being the linchpin of it. Of course, opinions do vary as evidenced by the fact that some of us don't have deep-rooted problems with Darlene. Either way, judging from how many of us here wish we knew what's happened over the intervening years, everyone involved could have a story line or at least an episode in which he or she is the focus.

Love this whole post and agree 100%! I’d like to see everyone who is left have an episode or two where they’re focused on. Personally, I’ve always really liked Darlene (maybe because she and I are a lot alike in personality?) and would love to see them explore more of the Darlene/Becky sisterly friendship that was starting to emerge. My favorite characters in order were always Jackie, Darlene and then Dan, so I’d be perfectly happy to watch them interact with each other and the rest of the cast and have it be more of an ensemble show rather than the focus being more on one person as it was when Roseanne was the center. 

1 hour ago, Browncoat said:

Well, if Roseanne has a financial interest in the characters, and they need to change names, Darlene could be Larlene.  Or Lardene.  Or Dardene.   ;)

Hee!! I legit just choked on my water laughing at this! I’m partial to Larlene. :) 

Dan could be Lan or Pan or Sam or Don. Jackie could be referred to as Marjorie as a nod to Bev saying that was what Jackie’s real name is. 

The possibilities are endless!! :) 

[Kazu]

27 minutes ago, peacheslatour said:

 That's a bit much, don't you think?

Sarcasm was my point. It was how she was referenced on the show by Darlene on more than one occasion. 

[2727]

1 hour ago, TigerLynx said:

She does. Any scenario which keeps any of the characters means they will have to pay Roseanne even if she is no longer on the show.

She would also have to agree to allow it.

Back in the day, the Smothers brothers eventually won their lawsuit against CBS for breach of contract after their show was abruptly shut down. Things could get even more interesting!

[janie jones]

8 hours ago, break21 said:

[Roseanne] was the draw and everything revolved around her. 

This comment has me curious.  Sure, the show revolved around  Roseanne, but I wonder what proportion of the viewing audience saw her as the draw.  She was certainly not the draw for me in watching the reboot; the draw was the ensemble.  I can take or leave the character of Roseanne, especially the reboot version of her.

[qtpye]

2 hours ago, Kazu said:

 

Mark wasn't mature himself in the beginning.  Dan didn't like him. Mark's maturity came with age and experience. I could see David doing the same, as many people do when they grow up, mature, and gain experience.

 

Mark and David did not really have a healthy brother relationship, but it was probably not surprising given the environment they were raised. David looked down at a blue collar worker like Mark and Mark thought David was not manly enough. They might have gotten closer later since David named his son after him.

[Picture It. Sicily]

3 hours ago, Browncoat said:

Well, if Roseanne has a financial interest in the characters, and they need to change names, Darlene could be Larlene.  Or Lardene.  Or Dardene.   ;)

Becky could be Frampton or Chablis. It was the 70s after all.

[Neiman]

1 hour ago, janie jones said:

This comment has me curious.  Sure, the show revolved around  Roseanne, but I wonder what proportion of the viewing audience saw her as the draw.  She was certainly not the draw for me in watching the reboot; the draw was the ensemble.  I can take or leave the character of Roseanne, especially the reboot version of her.

Since the beginning and with the reboot, Roseanne was the draw for me.  With this last season, I also liked Dan, Jackie, DJ, and Becky; however, I haven't cared much for the Darlene storyline.  I have no interest in a spinoff if it revolves around Darlene.

[UYI]

I sit here at my little table of one wishing for a series revolving around Becky...

[TattleTeeny]

Is this seat taken?

[mythoughtis]

4 hours ago, bigskygirl said:

David ran off and left Darlene to raise their two kids. I would say that is not grown up and being mature.

If there is one thing about this reboot that I think the writers and producers screwed up - this was it. I refuse to accept that David abandoned his children, financially or otherwise. They could have had them divorced, Him currently overseas for work, Darlene loses her job and still has to move home to make ends meet. Lots of divorced women end up back at home even with child support.   They moved him home at the end of the episode so there was no reason for the abandonment plot line. 

Edited June 3, 2018 by mythoughtis

[UYI]

25 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

Is this seat taken?

Pull up a chair! Now there's two of us. :)

[Neko]

21 hours ago, HadleyFields said:

Don't sitcoms usually have up to 6 main actors carrying a show?  John, Laurie, Sarah and Lecy are the 4 adults, maybe the kids could be secondary (like they were in Everybody Loves Raymond), leaving room for additional adult characters. I love the next door neighbors, Darlene could obtain a work friend or two, an old high school acquaintance could enter, and Oh My God! I forgot DJ! His family is so important! Well, there you have it, the cast can be fleshed out beautifully with some more members.

Molly.  I would watch if a grown up Darlene and Molly had to interact.  Maybe they could work at the same place.

[SparklesBitch]

17 minutes ago, Sweet Summer Child said:

Molly.  I would watch if a grown up Darlene and Molly had to interact.  Maybe they could work at the same place.

Oooh....I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter....:) /Homer Simpson 

Seriously though, I like this idea! Also, I had a soft spot for Charlotte too. Maybe they could bring them both back. 

[Jacqs]

Bringing back Charlotte might help Mara Hobel finally live down the Mommie Dearest movie

[UYI]

7 minutes ago, JacquelineAppleton said:

Bringing back Charlotte might help Mara Hobel finally live down the Mommie Dearest movie

Speaking of which, I couldn't help but think of this gif after everything that's happened this past week:

[methodwriter85]

2 hours ago, Sweet Summer Child said:

Molly.  I would watch if a grown up Darlene and Molly had to interact.  Maybe they could work at the same place.

Danielle Harris still works in the industry and she doesn't seem like she'd be a hard get. I would totally be behind her working in the casino or something.

[readster]

10 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

If there is one thing about this reboot that I think the writers and producers screwed up - this was it. I refuse to accept that David abandoned his children, financially or otherwise. They could have had them divorced, Him currently overseas for work, Darlene loses her job and still has to move home to make ends meet. Lots of divorced women end up back at home even with child support.   They moved him home at the end of the episode so there was no reason for the abandonment plot line. 

I agree too. After the life that David lived and everything that lead him into the Connors Life. I can see them not working out due to getting married so young and being a shot gun wedding and then David loosing his brother Mark. However, to believe he just got up and left all three and his kids also barely acknowledge him, not that does not ring true at all. 

[katie9918]

If ABC wants to make a go without Roseanne, it has to be an ensemble centered around Goodman and Metcalf. Jackie moves in after Roseanne’s unexpected death during knee surgery to help out with Darlene and the kids.

 

While I would find Darlene interesting enough to watch a show around, I’d rather watch her with Dan, Jackie, and Becky rather than her kids.

[StaceyNotStacie]

3 minutes ago, katie9918 said:

If ABC wants to make a go without Roseanne, it has to be an ensemble centered around Goodman and Metcalf. Jackie moves in after Roseanne’s unexpected death during knee surgery to help out with Darlene and the kids.

 

While I would find Darlene interesting enough to watch a show around, I’d rather watch her with Dan, Jackie, and Becky rather than her kids.

I’d rather see Becky move home than Jackie move in. She could still show up doing her laundry and having dinner with them. If Jackie moved in, I’d wonder what they were doing with Bev, especially if they didn’t mention her (unless they went the Debbie Reynolds route and said she died suddenly after the shock of Roseanne’s death). 

[Mu Shu]

13 hours ago, UYI said:

I sit here at my little table of one wishing for a series revolving around Becky...

Make it two.  I really like her in 2018.

[Milburn Stone]

6 hours ago, katie9918 said:

If ABC wants to make a go without Roseanne, it has to be an ensemble centered around Goodman and Metcalf. Jackie moves in after Roseanne’s unexpected death during knee surgery to help out with Darlene and the kids.

Separate and apart from how repulsive any arrangement that continued to earn Roseanne one penny would be to me, I just can't see ABC doing it without making its principled stand against Roseanne look ridiculous. They'd be saying, "Her racism makes her unacceptable on-air, but we're perfectly happy to continue doing business with a racist." I predict they won't put themselves in that position.

[HadleyFields]

17 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

Separate and apart from how repulsive any arrangement that continued to earn Roseanne one penny would be to me, I just can't see ABC doing it without making its principled stand against Roseanne look ridiculous.

I know I heard on one of the news entertainment shows, Page Six I think, that Roseanne was working with her lawyers to change her contract so the current cast, writers, etc. could keep their jobs. I'm hoping that means she wants to be released from this reboot.

[chocolatine]

Just now, HadleyFields said:

I know I heard on one of the news entertainment shows, Page Six I think, that Roseanne was working with her lawyers to change her contract so the current cast, writers, etc. could keep their jobs. I'm hoping that means she wants to be released from this reboot.

I doubt Roseanne is willing to walk away from it all without any compensation - she'll probably ask for a lump sum in return for signing away her share of the show - so either way, continuing with a spinoff would mean putting money in her pocket. I think if ABC really wants to take a stand against Roseanne's behavior they'll unfortunately have to kill the show completely, even if it means putting good, hardworking people out of a job. The best they can do is employ those people on their other shows that have no affiliation with Roseanne.

[needschocolate]

19 hours ago, janie jones said:

This comment has me curious.  Sure, the show revolved around  Roseanne, but I wonder what proportion of the viewing audience saw her as the draw.  She was certainly not the draw for me in watching the reboot; the draw was the ensemble.  I can take or leave the character of Roseanne, especially the reboot version of her.

She wasn't the draw for me in watching the reboot.  I don't remember if she originally was the draw when the show first started - She probably was because she was the only one I knew beforehand (although I vaguely remember not tuning in at the very beginning, but starting later, after friends started commenting on the show), because of her stand-up routines. However, she was not the reason for me to continue watching the original.  I never thought she was a very good actress and I find her voice a bit annoying.  I would say that the reason I continued to watch was the writing and stories were good and there were enough good actors in the rest of the cast.  

[HadleyFields]

25 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

I doubt Roseanne is willing to walk away from it all without any compensation - she'll probably ask for a lump sum in return for signing away her share of the show - so either way, continuing with a spinoff would mean putting money in her pocket. I think if ABC really wants to take a stand against Roseanne's behavior they'll unfortunately have to kill the show completely, even if it means putting good, hardworking people out of a job. The best they can do is employ those people on their other shows that have no affiliation with Roseanne.

I agree with everything you've said and it's not the worst thing in the world if it is done for good, but a lot of people are attached to the characters, the stories they have to tell and the cast, as well. I'm just adding my 2-cents of a Roseanne without Roseanne.  

[ketose]

If ABC wants to be really messy, they could try arguing breach of contract and threaten Roseanne with a bunch of lawsuits unless she signs over her rights with a lump sum.

So far, a number of streaming sites still have a library of old Roseanne episodes, as well as Cosby.

[Chaos Theory]

19 hours ago, Neiman said:

Since the beginning and with the reboot, Roseanne was the draw for me.  With this last season, I also liked Dan, Jackie, DJ, and Becky; however, I haven't cared much for the Darlene storyline.  I have no interest in a spinoff if it revolves around Darlene.

I am the exact opposite.  Sara Gilbert was always the draw for me.  I couldn’t care less about Roseanne Barr and her politics and if she kept them on a leash she would have remained a non entity for me.  Dan, Jackie and especially Becky were more interesting.

Edited June 3, 2018 by Chaos Theory

[qtpye]

18 hours ago, UYI said:

I sit here at my little table of one wishing for a series revolving around Becky...

 

18 hours ago, UYI said:

Pull up a chair! Now there's two of us. :)

I would love a show around Becky. I want to know how the one Connor who got straight A's ended up being an aimless party girl, beyond just she sort of went off the rails after Mark died. It would also nice to see a single woman that was not portrayed as pathetic or desperately seeking love.

[UYI]

20 minutes ago, qtpye said:

 

I would love a show around Becky. I want to know how the one Connor who got straight A's ended up being an aimless party girl, beyond just she sort of went off the rails after Mark died. It would also nice to see a single woman that was not portrayed as pathetic or desperately seeking love.

Yeah, so much of Becky's character was put up in the air once the part went back and forth between Sarah and Lecy--the characterization changed with Sarah, then changed back when Lecy returned, and then when Sarah came back it was like Becky was a background character with no stories of her own (although that started to happen a bit even before Lecy returned). With Lecy back/the possibility of Becky getting more focus, there's such a great opportunity to actually dig deeper into her character trajectory.

...But alas, I know better than to expect this to actually happen. :( 

Edited June 3, 2018 by UYI

[Neiman]

25 minutes ago, Chaos Theory said:

I am the exact opposite.  Sara Gilbert was always the draw for me.  I couldn’t care less about Roseanne Barr and her politics and if she kept them on a leash she would have remained a non entity for me.  Dan, Jackie and especially Becky were more interesting.

Interesting...I thought Gilbert did okay in supporting roles like her weird obituary writer role on Living Biblically, but she's never been one to draw me in.  Different strokes...

[Patricia07]

I had trouble making the connection between reboot Darlene and original Darlene. To me, Sara Gilbert was just playing herself in the reboot. 

[BlossomCulp]

The only reason I could see myself watching a reboot of the reboot is because I wouldn't watch the reboot with Roseanne in it.  I do want to know "whatever happened" to the Conners!  I doubt though that it will happen.  Way too much baggage.

[Kel Varnsen]

On 5/31/2018 at 4:50 PM, Kel Varnsen said:

Forget that. Make an entire new show with the rest of the cast. Make it a 30 Rock style show within a show where they play fictionalized versions of themselves working on a family sitcom with a difficult star. You could even give Tom Arnold a role as the network executive they have to deal with.

I need to amend my original idea. Tom Arnold should play the Liz Lemon style showrunner, Sarah Chalke should play the ABC network executive, and the difficult star should be played by Katy Segal as a shout out to the fact that Roseanne Barr was the original choice for Peg Bundy.

[27bored]

I’m late to the party, but I think they canceled Roseanne not so much because of the tweets, but because it gave them an out. 

I don’t think ABC was all that excited to get back in bed with Roseanne; I think the rest of the cast being corralled for the reboot made them green light it. When they say how big it was, I think they wanted a reason to bail because ABC wants to hold all the cards, so to speak. They know with a hit show like that they would have to pay up and Roseanne would be more difficult to deal with because she had a hit show. Plus, I don’t think they want another situation where they’re blamed for being political when canning a show like they were with Last Man Standing. So they pounced on her comment about Valerie Jarrett as a reason to prevent a headache. 

My guess is, if they really want to continue without her, they’ll probably give her whatever she wants to keep the show more or less intact.

Edited June 4, 2018 by 27bored

[KoBnR]

I have a couple theories.

We all know this was intentional. But I was thinking how on and off her acting was during the run. Like scenes she felt like old Roseanne in her element and some scenes... she looked lost or reading her lines. Or totally not interested in the line itself. It's strange. But then I think okay, she really hasn't done much since the first run of the series so it may take a season to warm up. I can understand. So I wonder if maybe she just didn't like the final result. So she did this to get out of the contract to further embarrass herself and the character she plays. I could go speculate why she does a 360 on her acting but that's another topic.

Another theory is perhaps ABC restricted them too much? Money maybe? Directing? Scripts? Writing? Etc. Maybe upon knowing how successful the show can be, did this to get out of the contract, so she could go to Netflix or Hulu. For more freedom? I'm not sure.

But if Roseanne continues on without "Roseanne" or if they go ahead with "Darlene", I'll feel it was because she just couldn't handle it and didn't like the final result. I know everyone says the woman is crazy but if anyone follows her, she's smart. She knows exactly what she's doing when she's doing it. Maybe not 100% of the time but a good freaken chunk. So I do wonder if this whole thing is just a publicity stunt of some kind of just a way to get out of the contract with ABC.

[possibilities]

Whatever her motivations, as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing that justifies the racism. It's not a victimless crime, it's not a neutral flame out, it's not an acceptable way to get what she wants.

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, 27bored said:

I don’t think ABC was all that excited to get back in bed with Roseanne; I think the rest of the cast being corralled for the reboot made them green light it. When they say how big it was, I think they wanted a reason to bail because ABC wants to hold all the cards, so to speak. They know with a hit show like that they would have to pay up and Roseanne would be more difficult to deal with because she had a hit show.

Roseanne was the number one scripted show on network television for the season, and the contracts for season two were already in place, so ABC knew what they would be paying out (and knew what they could garner, based on those ratings, for commercials).  And they spent years dealing with her in exchange for a hit show; this time around, while her Twitter feed was problematic, it wasn't having much of an effect on their bottom line, and by all accounts her behavior in the writers' room was better than it had ever been during the original series, so they'd actually ditched an expected headache.  There was a big promotional push for the show, including at the upfronts.  I don't think ABC executives had any desire to bail until she finally posted something they knew there was no effectively distancing themselves from - cast members would pull out, advertisers would pull out, and if they didn't act swiftly they'd be on the wrong side.  And they're still trying not to leave money on the table if they don't have to, looking into Roseanne-less continuation possibilities.

[RoxieRambles]

5 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I need to amend my original idea. Tom Arnold should play the Liz Lemon style showrunner, Sarah Chalke should play the ABC network executive, and the difficult star should be played by Katy Segal as a shout out to the fact that Roseanne Barr was the original choice for Peg Bundy.

Great idea, I love it!

[CelticBlackCat]

Tom Arnold says that as soon as he heard about Roseanne being a reboot, he knew Roseanne Barr, his ex-wife, was going to sabotage it.  He says he was telling everyone to take away her phone and keep her off Twitter.

I buy the theory that Roseanne Barr would want an out and was perhaps as surprised as anyone else that right after the new season premiered, it was announced another season was coming.  What I don't understand is why she chose the person she did to post a racist comment about since Valerie Jarrett hasn't been in the news lately and the Obama Administration is over with.

It's all very baffling to me.

I don't see ABC paying off Roseanne to have the rights to continue with a spinoff.  It doesn't seem like a financially sound idea to me, with an iffy return on your "investment."

I really think it's time to let this latest kerfuffle breathe it's last breath and just die off already.

[BW Manilowe]

On 5/31/2018 at 11:15 AM, UYI said:

Still alive and kicking at 72. 

I was also wondering about her awhile back. She is still alive, & she has a theatrical credit from this year, but I thought--erroneously--that her Wikipedia page said she hadn't been active since 2010.

She has a theatrical credit on Wikipedia from this year, but (though I know she was in a Broadway show, Finding Neverland, which she apparently abruptly quit, early in its run, a few years ago) the last thing I know I've seen her in was (now repeats of) an episode of Law & Order from 1995, where she played a defense attorney to a troubled young woman, with a juvenile record discovered during the current case, who went up against Jack McCoy & his ADA, Claire Kincaid. She apparently also had a brief, recurring role as a Judge in Law & Order: Special Victims Unit during 2015.

[BW Manilowe]

On 5/31/2018 at 4:49 PM, bigskygirl said:

Is Ed still alive? I agree there are bigger things in the world to worry about. I could care less about Roseanne or the show to be honest about it. I just hate the fact there will be people who will be paying the price for one racist tweet. Of course, she is not the first celebrity to play the victim card, and sadly she will not be the last one either.

I don't know about the character of Ed, but veteran character actor Ned Beatty, who played Ed in the original, is still alive. However, his Wikipedia page says that he's now 80 & he apparently hasn't acted since sometime in 2014.