Ratings and Scheduling

[AgentRXS]

On 11/3/2018 at 12:05 AM, langford peel said:

Is there a huge demand for Goodman or Metcalf? They are top level character actors at best.

Laurie has been nominated for 3 Tony Awards in the past 5 years and shes won the past two years. She was also a Oscar nominee just last year. Of course, there isn't a huge demand for women over 60 on television, but Laurie's career is steady and she is critically acclaimed. She is starring opposite John Lithgow in a Broadway play in spring of next year. She's currently doing voiceover for Toy Story 4. Laurie's continued role on this show will be if she wants to do it, not that she needs to.

Edited November 5, 2018 by AgentRXS

[wknt3]

On 11/3/2018 at 12:05 AM, langford peel said:

Is there a huge demand for Goodman or Metcalf? They are top level character actors at best.

Actually top level character actors are some of the most sought after commodities in Hollywood (just look at the number of credits of any top character actor on IMDB and how many of them are in high profile productions), so even if one was to ignore say Goodman's multiple awards and leading roles he still has his pick of projects especially in the age of streaming when casting a known commodity that will draw media and an existing fanbase is more valuable than ever. Not to mention that they both have multiple outside projects going on already which seems to be proof that they are in demand.

[tessaray]

Roseanne Barr is not on topic here. She has her own topic in the original show forum. 

[ThatsDarling]

On 11/5/2018 at 1:27 AM, AgentRXS said:

Laurie has been nominated for 3 Tony Awards in the past 5 years and shes won the past two years. She was also a Oscar nominee just last year. Of course, there isn't a huge demand for women over 60 on television, but Laurie's career is steady and she is critically acclaimed. She is starring opposite John Lithgow in a Broadway play in spring of next year. She's currently doing voiceover for Toy Story 4. Laurie's continued role on this show will be if she wants to do it, not that she needs to.

In addition to her consecutive Tony wins and Oscar nomination, Laurie was nominated for three Emmy awards in 2016, all for different shows and genres (Getting On, Horace and Pete, and The Big Bang Theory). She's killing it.

I think the appeal of a project like The Conners to a Laurie Metcalf or a John Goodman is that they have the opportunity to play roles they enjoy, work with people they like, and earn more money than they probably make doing theater or independent films. Live action sitcoms also tend to have a significantly less grueling production schedule than, say, a single-camera series. 

[Colorado David]

ah man! no epi tonite, election coverage. UGH!  gimme my conners

[langford peel]

It looks like the President of ABC who made the hasty decision to fire Roseanne and cost millions of dollars in lost revenues has resigned. She will be replaced by the former head of the Christian Broadcasting Network. Perhaps this signals a change in direction. I seriously doubt it but you never know.

[link417]

23 minutes ago, langford peel said:

It looks like the President of ABC who made the hasty decision to fire Roseanne and cost millions of dollars in lost revenues has resigned. She will be replaced by the former head of the Christian Broadcasting Network. Perhaps this signals a change in direction. I seriously doubt it but you never know.

Her “hasty decision” was supported by the top executives at Disney. She worked at ABC for almost 15 years, I believe, so I’m not surprised she’s stepping down. Plus, there have been lots of management changes in the Fox transition and there will be many more to come. 

Her replacement worked at ABC’s Freeform channel for several years so no, I do not think there will be a change in direction.

[peacheslatour]

Sources close to the situation emphasized that the decision to depart ABC was entirely Dungey’s. She is known to have had a close relationship with Disney chairman-CEO Bob Iger who is said to have assured her that she would have a place at ABC or Disney in the post-Fox realignment. Dungey has expressed a desire to be closer to the production process, having come up at ABC through the studio side.

What Dungey does next is, for now, a question. She is a popular executive with admired programming taste and deep talent relationships — particularly with Shonda Rhimes, (Grey's Anatomy) whose Netflix development slate is bigger than some cable channels’, and could benefit from a seasoned executive hand working with the producer.

[langford peel]

The Conners finished in third place in its time slot again last week. The contracts are up. It seems unlikely that it will be renewed since the new president is not invested in it.

Unless of course Goodman and Metcalf take a major pay cut. If they are as concerned with keeping the jobs for the cast and crew as Roseanne was they can take a cut from the estimated $375,000 per episode that they are getting now.

Let’s see what happens.

[BlossomCulp]

This Is Us and The Conners both hit their lowest adults 18-49 ratings ever on Tuesday, Nov. 13 — but were also the two top scripted shows of the night.   The Conners fell 0.3 from its last outing to a season-low 1.5 in the 18-49 demo. (snip)  NCIS tied its season high of 1.4 for CBS, and FBI ticked up to 1.1 after four straight weeks at 1.0. NCIS: New Orleans was steady with a 0.9.  

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/conners-is-us-tv-ratings-tuesday-nov-13-2018-1161114

So The Conners season low was still better than NCIS's season high.

I know the naysayers are eager to see this show cancelled but it's not doing as badly as they'd like it to be.  Indeed, let's see what happens.

Edited November 19, 2018 by BlossomCulp

[Lili]

I'm kind of surprised it's not doing worse. I wonder how many people claiming they were boycotting the show went ahead and watched it anyway.

[peacheslatour]

From Programming Insider:

On ABC, “The Conners” remained consistent at a healthy 5.0/ 9 (#3), which was 28 percent above the 3.9/ 7 for year-ago time period occupant “The Middle.” At this point, the novelty has worn off and you can consider “The Conners” the real deal.
 

Edited November 21, 2018 by peacheslatour

[BlossomCulp]

5 minutes ago, peacheslatour said:

At this point, the novelty has worn off and you can consider “The Conners” the real deal.

If this leads to renewal a few hearts will break.    Thinking about those who have been hate watching - or at least watching the ratings and hoping that the show will tank - makes me wonder whatever happened to all those other opportunities Roseanne was supposed to be getting on TV.  

[peacheslatour]

56 minutes ago, BlossomCulp said:

If this leads to renewal a few hearts will break.    Thinking about those who have been hate watching - or at least watching the ratings and hoping that the show will tank - makes me wonder whatever happened to all those other opportunities Roseanne was supposed to be getting on TV.  

😢😭😛

[DangerousMinds]

On 11/18/2018 at 10:24 PM, Lili said:

I'm kind of surprised it's not doing worse. I wonder how many people claiming they were boycotting the show went ahead and watched it anyway.

A lot of people are REALLY bad at "boycotting."😂

[tessaray]

Yesterday's New York Times had an article on reboots losing their luster but this paragraph stood out:

"Fox has seen solid returns from “Last Man Standing,” a comedy starring Tim Allen that was revived this season after it was canceled by ABC in May 2017. And even without Roseanne Barr, “The Conners” has done well for ABC, generating numbers that suggest it is a sustainable draw. Through five episodes, its ratings are on a par with the CBS hit “Young Sheldon,” good enough for seventh place among entertainment programs. It is also ABC’s highest-rated sitcom."

[Brn2bwild]

Good ratings news:

'The Conners' Remains the Real Deal on ABC

[ryebread]

Quote

ABC has announced its plans to fill the hole left by The Conners, which will wrap its 11-episode run on Jan. 22.

Quote

ABC won’t make a decision about another season of The Conners until the spring.

https://ew.com/tv/2018/11/28/american-housewife-return-the-conners-february/ 

[jsbt]

Which was to be expected, with Goodman and Metcalf having other commitments in the interim. It was never going to do a full 22-episode season, but I do expect it to get another 10-13 episode season per their availability.

[Pallas]

Sounds like the announcement will be part of ABC's May upfronts. Once logistics are settled around cast schedules, and so, the show's slot within the 2019/20 season. As I recall, the network upfronts usually roll out alphabetically, so ABC would at least lead off the week!

[CherryAmes]

I could see them doing shorter seasons, lots of shows do that now.  Where I find that a pain in the ass is when they do these short seasons and a character is pregnant.  It will be interesting if they do go that route to see when they have that baby.  On Rules of Engagement the Brenda character was pregnant IIRC for 3 flipping years!

[jsbt]

Most 'prestige' shows with major talent draws (like John Goodman) do 10-13 episodes max outside of network TV, to the point that network TV has begun adopting this model. (IIRC Viola Davis insists on 15 max for How to Get Away with Murder, and their season is split.) The Conners is no different, and I believe Will & Grace did the same.

[BeachDays]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadline.com/2018/12/conners-season-low-ratings-flash-rise-ncis-the-voice-cbs-nbc-1202514467/amp/

 

😢

[tessaray]

Maybe the David/Darlene shippers are tuning out? 

Or it could just be the holidays.  I don't think it's really fair to compare it to the revival at this point in the run. 

[jsbt]

Not a big deal.

[Concerned]

The evolution will be to drop Goodman and Metcalf and some of the weaklings like DJ and retool the show as Darlene. There have been plenty of network shows about openly gay men, but never one centered on an out Lesbian. (Ellen came out after initially being portrayed as straight.)

[peacheslatour]

Then why are they setting Darlene up with a new boyfriend? Why not just make her gay from the get go?

[CherryAmes]

46 minutes ago, Concerned said:

The evolution will be to drop Goodman and Metcalf and some of the weaklings like DJ and retool the show as Darlene.

Doubtful.  If the show gets picked up it will get picked up based on the current cast and the current storylines.  To do anything else will just, frankly, be stupid.  The people who are watching are invested in the Conner family and want to see what happens to them (well maybe not the kiddies) and want to see some of the stories get resolved.  If they do cancel the show I hope they end it with an epilogue where we find out "what happens next".

[CrystalBlue]

Maybe the 11th added episode will do that.  I wonder about them announcing that we won't know until the spring if The Connors is going to have a second season.  Even if S01 ends up with decent ratings, the show might be let go because they already got their money's worth out of Goodman and Metcalf not to mention every one else in making this Roseanne Without Roseanne Show Season Two (now The Conners) for which everyone was already paid.  I really don't see a strong future for S02 because Sara Gilbert has her show The Talk.

Edited December 7, 2018 by CrystalBlue

[CherryAmes]

Well if they do decide to cancel I just hope they know in enough time to end it properly.  Dammit I want something happy to happen for them and I don't mean winning the lottery!

Edited December 6, 2018 by CherryAmes

[Pallas]

There's a reason sweeps are in November, not December. And The Conners is the network's most-viewed show.

[tessaray]

3 hours ago, Concerned said:

The evolution will be to drop Goodman and Metcalf and some of the weaklings like DJ and retool the show as Darlene. There have been plenty of network shows about openly gay men, but never one centered on an out Lesbian. (Ellen came out after initially being portrayed as straight.)

Sara may be gay but Darlene isn't.  I'm not sure most people would buy it if they took the character in that direction - at least not with the current writers.   

Personally I don't have any desire to watch the show without JG/LM, though I'd give it a chance. 

[jsbt]

17 hours ago, CrystalBlue said:

I really don't see a strong future for S02 because Sara Gilbert has her show The Talk.

 

This doesn't make sense since it was Sara Gilbert's idea to do this revival in the first place. She produces this show and produced last season. She and Bruce Helford/Carsey-Werner pitched The Conners. She's been doing The Talk for years and has now chosen to do double duty.

This is not just about paying the cast off. The show is a legitimate critical and ratings success, and the spring announcement is the next time the cast is free (Goodman and Metcalf have stage and film commitments), plus the show is never going to be 22 episodes again. IMO the only way it doesn't get renewed is if the cast wants it to end.

Edited December 7, 2018 by jsbt

[CrystalBlue]

11 hours ago, jsbt said:

This doesn't make sense since it was Sara Gilbert's idea to do this revival in the first place. She produces this show and produced last season. She and Bruce Helford/Carsey-Werner pitched The Conners. She's been doing The Talk for years and has now chosen to do double duty.

This is not just about paying the cast off. The show is a legitimate critical and ratings success, and the spring announcement is the next time the cast is free (Goodman and Metcalf have stage and film commitments), plus the show is never going to be 22 episodes again. IMO the only way it doesn't get renewed is if the cast wants it to end.

I could be wrong about this, but remember, in Hollywood everything is PR and spin doctored, so the true stories are often hidden.  Perhaps Roseanne Barr was correct when she said she was sad that everyone would lose their jobs when she was fired, because maybe ABC would have demanded their money back for the work not done, so Sara thought about the revival without Roseanne to keep everyone financially stable for the first season of the revival show.  I don't really know, but I still don't see a strong season 2 of The Conners in the future.  It could be they try for a second season and it starts limping along.  It's just my opinion.  I don't have any inside info.  I'm just going by what I've read from viewers and the fact that the ratings have gone down since the premier.

[Concerned]

Rosanne is still the star of the Conners. Every character was created as a foil for Rosanne’s wit. The Conners is haunted by Rosanne. It was nice to revisit the characters from the old show and see what has become of them, but watching the Conners is like standing in a cemetery looking at the gravestones and remembering old friends. This show has no future, but does have a brilliant past.

[MaryMitch]

4 minutes ago, Concerned said:

Rosanne is still the star of the Conners. Every character was created as a foil for Rosanne’s wit. The Conners is haunted by Rosanne. It was nice to revisit the characters from the old show and see what has become of them, but watching the Conners is like standing in a cemetery looking at the gravestones and remembering old friends. This show has no future, but does have a brilliant past.

I have to disagree with you here. I didn't even think about Roseanne during the last episode. Every now and then they throw in a couple lines about "Mom", but they seem to be adjusting to her absence, and so am I.

[CherryAmes]

33 minutes ago, Concerned said:

The Conners is haunted by Rosanne. It was nice to revisit the characters from the old show and see what has become of them, but watching the Conners is like standing in a cemetery looking at the gravestones and remembering old friends. This show has no future, but does have a brilliant past.

I don't agree with that.  I watch The Conners, I refused to watch Roseanne.  They aren't pretending Roseanne never existed so it's true in one sense that Roseanne is still around, but she's around the same way any family member who has died would be around.  Which to me is a good thing.  I'd have hated it if they had decided to write Roseanne off and then they forgot about her. (the character I mean).  I have to take issue with the "brilliant past" of this show.  It was a show that could be great, but it was also a show that could be really really bad. Just like most sitcoms.

[jsbt]

10 hours ago, CrystalBlue said:

Perhaps Roseanne Barr was correct when she said she was sad that everyone would lose their jobs when she was fired, because maybe ABC would have demanded their money back for the work not done, so Sara thought about the revival without Roseanne to keep everyone financially stable for the first season of the revival show. 

That's not really how that works with this stuff. Also, this is not a writeoff - it's been a substantial, heavily network-promoted success. With the exception of last week's drop (which may have many explanations around the holidays) - and maybe even with it, I'm not sure - the show is still overall averaging ratings on par with the end of the last season of Roseanne this past spring. That is a major metric of success in ABC's eyes.

As for viewer comments, certain types of folks love to spam social media and comment sections on shows - The Conners became a target for them when Roseanne was fired. 90% of the time these days, those efforts are coordinated, artificial and "astroturf" - as in, engineered online to fake a mass response. If that response was as real as it looked, ABC never would have fired Roseanne, greenlit The Conners or promoted it so heavily. And more importantly, the ratings would not be overall strong and consistent. That's hard data. Whereas with the supposed viewer outcry, it does not match the ratings. Like when you see fake bots or one person pretending to be five on Facebook - a couple dozen people or bots are easy to turn into a fake mob on Twitter or in an anonymous comment section.

Whether the show falters in a second year isn't the issue, either; that happens to many sitcoms. What is is that it's been successful for the network and looks primed for renewal if the cast consents.

Edited December 8, 2018 by jsbt

[Emkat]

Actually watching the last 2 or so episodes I realized that I didn't miss Roseanne at all.

[lookeyloo]

12 minutes ago, Emkat said:

Actually watching the last 2 or so episodes I realized that I didn't miss Roseanne at all.

You know, I had the same thought.  

[CherryAmes]

I'm trying really hard to separate the character from the actor and I honestly do feel that the show doesn't need  the character.  They've hit the right note AFAIC in terms of how they've handled Roseanne Conner's demise - and even more importantly they didn't do a character assassination because they're pissed with Roseanne Barr.  They took the high road IMO and the show is all the better for that.

Edited December 8, 2018 by CherryAmes

[jsbt]

They've moved the show on without her much, much easier than I expected. A big part of that may have to do with how frankly creaky Roseanne was as a performer last season vs. most of the rest of the cast, and so was rarely a massive plot mover that season, at least not entirely on her own. The next big hiccup I can foresee is if Dan ever moves on, which I can't see happening any time soon and I don't feel it would be smart. Further, there's very very few women you can find who could deal with standing in the shadow of Roseanne after decades of history, even with the murderer's row of brilliant TV and film character actresses who'd be available.

[CherryAmes]

Yeah I don't want to second guess them as I feel they've been making some good choices but I really hope they don't have Dan dating too soon.  It just wouldn't be believable to me for one thing if they're trying for a "what would happen in real life" vibe but also there are enough characters on the show now who can get into the dating scene with all it's attendant dramas and humour.  No reason to have Dan doing it too.

[Chaos Theory]

I think the difference comes to you believing this is Roseanne’s show and everyone else is just secondary characters or if you think this is a family show where Roseanne was the lead...until she wasn’t.  Like a lot of shows about family’s could you kill off the character thought of as the lead and still have a show or is the show JUST THEM and everyone else is essentially inconsequential.  

[tessaray]

So, I was searching for info on the next episode and I guess it's the last one until after the holidays.  Maybe that's why they added an extra episode, so they could pad out January a little. 

I take that as a good sign.  If the plan was to be done with it, they likely would have aired all the episodes before the break. 

[Mmmfloorpie]

On 08/12/2018 at 3:00 PM, jsbt said:

They've moved the show on without her much, much easier than I expected. A big part of that may have to do with how frankly creaky Roseanne was as a performer last season vs. most of the rest of the cast, and so was rarely a massive plot mover that season, at least not entirely on her own. The next big hiccup I can foresee is if Dan ever moves on, which I can't see happening any time soon and I don't feel it would be smart. Further, there's very very few women you can find who could deal with standing in the shadow of Roseanne after decades of history, even with the murderer's row of brilliant TV and film character actresses who'd be available.

The revival is really a Sara Gilbert vehicle that used Roseanne's name ID for free marketing. Most stories revolved around Darlene and her kids and Roseanne was just the B story.

That's why it wasn't hard for her to be excised from the show. Never would have worked if they fired her like she almost was in season 2. She was a domineering presence back then. It worked on the show Valerie because she basically played a typical sitcom mom and Jason Bateman became a breakout star.

[BlossomCulp]

21 minutes ago, Mmmfloorpie said:

She was a domineering presence back then.

This and also she grew to be a pretty good actress after a shaky start.  From everything I've heard and seen about the reboot she wasn't very good.  I think her health and mental health issues caught up with her big time and while we'll never know I can't help wondering how that would have affected things in a second season if they hadn't had to change direction the way they did.  

Edited December 10, 2018 by BlossomCulp

[jsbt]

2 hours ago, Mmmfloorpie said:

The revival is really a Sara Gilbert vehicle that used Roseanne's name ID for free marketing. 

That's really unfair, IMO. Using Darlene and her kids as a major avenue for new story was a natural fit, and the show was moving there with her primed as Roseanne's spiritual successor since Season 5-6 of the original show. I think the story's been spread pretty evenly both last season and especially this one. Lecy is being used much more substantially.

Edited December 10, 2018 by jsbt

[BlossomCulp]

1 hour ago, jsbt said:

Lecy is being used much more substantially.

Yep as are John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf.  The actor who plays DJ, let's face it, is just not a good enough actor to really carry a significant story line and I can't blame the powers that be for making him a bit of a background player.  And personally I hope they keep the younger cast members as background players too.  I want the stories to focus on Darlene, Becky, Dan and Jackie -- and I felt that way even back in Roseanne days!  

[Mmmfloorpie]

3 hours ago, jsbt said:

That's really unfair, IMO. Using Darlene and her kids as a major avenue for new story was a natural fit, and the show was moving there with her primed as Roseanne's spiritual successor since Season 5-6 of the original show. I think the story's been spread pretty evenly both last season and especially this one. Lecy is being used much more substantially.

She's exec producer of the show lol. Ever notice the "gilbert productions" title card in the end credits? 

The revival would have never happened without her clout in Hollywood from The Talk and appearances on Big Bang Theory.