ROSEANNE reboot — what are your thoughts?

3 Stars

I know the standard HTF rules apply when discussing the content, but considering how some of the shows being rebooted weren’t exactly my cup of tea when they were new, it’s time something I actually liked back in the day got a new lease on life. At least now with the return of Roseanne they will be bringing back a show that, at its best, was funny, relevant, and ahead of its time in numerous ways*. But times have changed and so has she. Luckily, the rest of the surviving cast will be back and the last season is being ignored.

I also have a theory about why so many old shows are getting rebooted and it has as much to do with lack of high-definition availability of the originals than the lack of new ideas in Hollywood and the lack of new excuses for the lack of new ideas.

Published by

Kevin Collins

administrator

453 Comments

  1. Gary Seven

    I also have a theory about these re surging shows… it's called money.

    I think it's creative bankruptcy. The networks can't come up with anything better than the shows they canceled in the past, so they're bringing them back again.

  2. Malcolm R

    I think it's creative bankruptcy. The networks can't come up with anything better than the shows they canceled in the past, so they're bringing them back again.

    That, plus the fact that they are probably in possession of surveys showing that many viewers only want "comfort food".

  3. I don't think "reboot" is the correct word for this or other shows making a return like Will & Grace and The X-Files. These shows are continuing after long hiatuses. They are in no way being "rebooted" which would be reworking an old premise into something different.

  4. Dheiner

    It seems to be working for…

    Not really. That show was a minstrel show then and it's painful to even talk about now. Roseanne did more to advance the image of gay people with Martin Mull's character of Leon. Unfortunately, I've not heard about him or the character coming back. Sara Gilbert, of course, is a lesbian and is heavily involved with it, too. Darlene and her husband are supposed to have a son, and his taste in clothes and hobbies is already causing a stir in real-life.

  5. Malcolm R

    I think it's creative bankruptcy. The networks can't come up with anything better than the shows they canceled in the past, so they're bringing them back again.

    Even more sad is that TV is on a 15 year creative hot streak and audiences are still wanting to see the same old stuff again. That being said, I love that The X-Files is back and Twin Peaks was the best thing on TV or in a movie theater last year so it's not all bad.

  6. Radioman970

    Roseanne was talking about her character's politics, and that made me nervous.

    At least I hope the old shows get bluray.

    Supposedly that's one of the things they will touch on: Jackie and Roseanne haven't spoken for a year because of the election.

    As for the original, there likely won't be Blu-rays since it was shot on 480i videotape. IIRC they had trouble even getting uncut episodes for DVD at first (that was on Carsey-Werner's end IIRC).

  7. I am enjoying the new Will & Grace episodes for the most part, but they always leave me with a slight feeling of "you can't go home again".

    I would think that Johnny Galecki cannot be a part of this new Roseanne because of his commitment to Big Bang Theory and, of course, sadly, Glenn Quinn passed away in 2002. It will be interesting to see how they fill the 20 year gap. 20 years! I can't believe how quickly the time has gone.

    I also recall that Roseanne was one of those shows, like Friends and some others, that did not have good ratings at first, but they found their audience as time went. Nowadays if the first two or three episodes of something new don't instantly have great ratings it is gone just that quickly. I enjoyed the show Partners (created by the Will & Grace creators) but they only showed 5 episodes before pulling the plug.

  8. KPmusmag

    I am enjoying the new Will & Grace episodes for the most part, but they always leave me with a slight feeling of "you can't go home again".

    I would think that Johnny Galecki cannot be a part of this new Roseanne because of his commitment to Big Bang Theory…

    He's confirmed for at least one episode, IIRC.

    As for Will and Grace? Started out big, it's now settled in around the same numbers as Superstore, which aren't that huge to begin with (1.1, 4ish million viewers). Same thing happened to The X-Files. Big debut, huge drops, now sitting at roughly the same level as every other Fox show.

    I see that happening to Roseanne. Big debut, big drop.

  9. Adam Lenhardt

    I think a big reason for these revivals is that the network execs look at the ratings they got, even in their waning final seasons, and salivate. They fail to consider that no show gets 12.9 rating anymore

    A show today with numbers that got Hello, Larry cancelled 38 years ago would be the #1 show in TV.

  10. Adam Lenhardt

    I think a big reason for these revivals is that the network execs look at the ratings they got, even in their waning final seasons, and salivate. They fail to consider that

    Adam Lenhardt

    no show gets 12.9 rating anymore


    I'm sure they understand that the landscape has changed, but an appeal to nostalgia for a proven prior success is probably a pretty easy sell when the original cast is all in.

  11. For whatever reason, I'm sure my parents couldn't explain it today, but I wasn't allowed to watch Roseanne when it originally aired so I've never actually seen it. (I asked them recently and they laughed and didn't even remember that prohibition.) I might watch a new episode just because of that.

  12. Any and all of my parents' attempts to forbid me from watching any specific TV shows were in vain. My mother's complaints that Married with Children was "raunchy" did not make me want to switch back to the TGIF pablum I had already outgrown as soon as The Golden Girls went into syndication. For me, it was a milestone to be able to stay up to watch a 9:00 PM show.

  13. Radioman970

    Roseanne was talking about her character's politics, and that made me nervous.

    At least I hope the old shows get bluray.

    It’s just a dopey tv show. Why would this make you nervous?

  14. The Obsolete Man

    He's confirmed for at least one episode, IIRC.

    As for Will and Grace? Started out big, it's now settled in around the same numbers as Superstore, which aren't that huge to begin with (1.1, 4ish million viewers). Same thing happened to The X-Files. Big debut, huge drops, now sitting at roughly the same level as every other Fox show.

    I see that happening to Roseanne. Big debut, big drop.

    "Will & Grace" has been kind of a disappointment to me. Not so much a reboot, more of just "rinse, repeat and do it again". Doesn't even look like any of them have aged. Makeup and hair dye 😀

    Maybe it has improved, but not on my must see list. If it fits in the schedule, I'll watch, but looks like they're already taking a break, yet they've barely started.

    "Roseanne" was always a little more "edgy" and took digs at everything. Plus more realistic with family and friend dynamics, not the picture perfect TV family. Guess we wait and see, but looking forward to it.

  15. Josh Steinberg

    For whatever reason, I'm sure my parents couldn't explain it today, but I wasn't allowed to watch Roseanne when it originally aired so I've never actually seen it. (I asked them recently and they laughed and didn't even remember that prohibition.) I might watch a new episode just because of that.

    Really aging myself here. When I was in elementary school, we actually went home with pre-printed letters warning our parents not to let us watch "Laugh-In" or "Love, American Style". Way to inappropriate 😀

    So of course we watched. At that age the humor was meaningless, but the "Prude Patrol" had to step in.

  16. I’m wary of it.

    The early years of Roseanne – particularly seasons 3 and 4 – were excellent. If the entire series run were of that quality, it would be considered a classic.

    But as Roseanne Barr gained more control over the show, the Roseanne Conner character changed. Originally, she was sarcastic but warm and was the type of person you’d like to have a beer with. Around season 5, she turned into this shrill, man-hater who could be really nasty to those around her. The show became more concerned with “pushing the envelope” than being funny. The underrated Lecy Goranson left, and Sara Gilbert began delivering all her lines in this monotone, a la Tina Yothers. The show runners changed constantly, too.

    I recently saw an episode where Dan was leaving his job at the city garage, and he got Mark and Jackie’s husband Fred to help him steal his desk. A quick throwaway gag, but the Dan Conner from the earlier seasons would never have done that.

    The showrunner for the new series is Bruce Helford, who ran season 5 when the show was still pretty good, but past the classic years. So it could go either way. I am happy to see, though, that they’ve gotten the entire original cast, plus guest stars like Bev (Estelle Parsons), Crystal (Natalie West), Anne Marie, etc.

  17. sjbradford

    I’m wary of it.

    The early years of Roseanne – particularly seasons 3 and 4 – were excellent. If the entire series run were of that quality, it would be considered a classic.

    But as Roseanne Barr gained more control over the show, the Roseanne Conner character changed. Originally, she was sarcastic but warm and was the type of person you’d like to have a beer with. Around season 5, she turned into this shrill, man-hater who could be really nasty to those around her. The show became more concerned with “pushing the envelope” than being funny. The underrated Lecy Goranson left, and Sara Gilbert began delivering all her lines in this monotone, a la Tina Yothers. The show runners changed constantly, too.

    I recently saw an episode where Dan was leaving his job at the city garage, and he got Mark and Jackie’s husband Fred to help him steal his desk. A quick throwaway gag, but the Dan Conner from the earlier seasons would never have done that.

    The showrunner for the new series is Bruce Helford, who ran season 5 when the show was still pretty good, but past the classic years. So it could go either way. I am happy to see, though, that they’ve gotten the entire original cast, plus guest stars like Bev (Estelle Parsons), Crystal (Natalie West), Anne Marie, etc.

    Had its ups and downs, but other than the last season, I enjoyed it.

    I think Sara Gilbert did some of her best work on "Roseanne", been a down hill slide ever since. She tossed out a few good Sheldon zingers, but was basically awful on TBBT. I also thought Sarah Chalke was a huge improvement over Alicia Goranson. We all have our opinions. 😎

    Have to disagree, but the Bev & Crystal characters were incredibly annoying. That voice Estelle Parsons chose to use was worse than fingernails on a chalkboard.

  18. The Big Bang Theory is one of those shows I just can't get into. I feel nothing for it whatsoever. It just exists.

    Stan

    Really aging myself here. When I was in elementary school, we actually went home with pre-printed letters warning our parents not to let us watch "Laugh-In" or "Love, American Style". Way to inappropriate 😀

    So of course we watched. At that age the humor was meaningless, but the "Prude Patrol" had to step in.

    Thanks to streaming, cable, and the Fox Network, what people were shocked by then would be nothing compared to what they permit on network TV today. I was almost 7 when The Simpsons premiered, and there were even TV news reports that Bart Simpson t-shirts, especially the "Underachiever and Proud of It" one which I think either me or my dad actually had, were encouraging antisocial behavior and anti-intellectualism at school. And while that show never died (except creatively), many of its contemporaries are coming back from the grave. Go figure.

  19. Stan

    Really aging myself here. When I was in elementary school, we actually went home with pre-printed letters warning our parents not to let us watch "Laugh-In" or "Love, American Style". Way to inappropriate 😀

    So of course we watched. At that age the humor was meaningless, but the "Prude Patrol" had to step in.

    We received a similar letter which included the Adam West "Batman" because of the violence. Zowie!

  20. MatthewA

    At least now with the return of Roseanne they will be bringing back a show that, at its best, was funny, relevant, and ahead of its time in numerous ways*. But times have changed and so has she. Luckily, the rest of the surviving cast will be back and the last season is being ignored.

    In my opinion, your comments above illustrate exactly why this is a horrible idea. Why tamper with the legacy of these classic shows and the actors who brought them to life? I love seeing John Goodman pop up in occasional film cameos playing new [age appropriate] characters. I don't need to see an undead Dan Conner.

  21. Josh Steinberg

    For whatever reason, I'm sure my parents couldn't explain it today, but I wasn't allowed to watch Roseanne when it originally aired so I've never actually seen it. (I asked them recently and they laughed and didn't even remember that prohibition.) I might watch a new episode just because of that.

    Why not watch the original episodes?

  22. Josh Steinberg

    That's a great question to which I don't have a great answer. I suppose "time" is probably the most honest answer.

    I hear you brother but investment [in this case time] and reward are usually directly proportional. My humble opinion is that your limited time would be better spent on the original episodes as opposed the new ones. I wasn't a big fan of the show but I still respect it as a classic.

  23. And now "Murphy Brown" boards the reboot train:

    CBS Press Release

    01.24.2018

    “MURPHY BROWN” RETURNS TO CBS

    CANDICE BERGEN REPRISES STARRING ROLE

    NETWORK GIVES WARNER BROS. TELEVISION-PRODUCED COMEDY

    13-EPISODE SERIES PRODUCTION COMMITMENT

    FOR 2018-2019 BROADCAST SEASON

    CBS has given a 13-episode, series production commitment to a current day revival of the Network’s classic comedy MURPHY BROWN from Warner Bros. Television for the 2018-2019 broadcast season, it was announced today by Kelly Kahl, President, CBS Entertainment, and Thom Sherman, Senior Executive Vice President, Programming, CBS Entertainment.

    Candice Bergen, who starred in the title role from 1988-1998, will reprise her role. As its 30th anniversary approaches, MURPHY BROWN returns to a world of cable news, social media, fake news and a very different political and cultural climate.

    Warner Bros. Television, producers of the original series, will produce the new multi-camera comedy with original creator Diane English serving as writer/executive producer through her Bend in the Road Productions banner. Bergen will also be an executive producer.

    During the show’s original 10-year run on CBS, MURPHY BROWN received 62 Emmy nominations (with 18 wins), 15 Golden Globe nominations (with three wins), three Screen Actors Guild awards, five Directors Guild nominations (with two wins) and four Writers Guild nominations (with two wins). Bergen won five Emmy Awards and a Golden Globe Award.

    In 2010 TV Guide named Murphy Brown one of the “25 Greatest TV Characters of All Time.”

    * * *​

    Press Contacts for CBS:

    Phil Gonzales
    818-655-1580
    [email protected]

    Scott Grogin
    818-655-1584
    [email protected]

    The only way this works for me is if it really leans into the changed media environment. I would be more excited if Candice Bergen is the only returning series regular.

    Robert Pastorelli and Pat Corley both died more than a decade ago. Charles Kimbrough is in his eighties and has only taken on voice work since 2003. That leaves Faith Ford, Joe Regalbuto and Grant Shaud as potentially available to return.

  24. Adam Lenhardt

    And now "Murphy Brown" boards the reboot train:

    The only way this works for me is if it really leans into the changed media environment. I would be more excited if Candice Bergen is the only returning series regular.

    Robert Pastorelli and Pat Corley both died more than a decade ago. Charles Kimbrough is in his eighties and has only taken on voice work since 2003. That leaves Faith Ford, Joe Regalbuto and Grant Shaud as potentially available to return.

    The only positive I see in this is maybe WB clears up some music licensing issues and releases the original series on DVD.

    …Or licenses it out to Shout or Time-Life for a complete series release.

  25. They've been doing this for years, except they used to be called "TV reunion" movies: 2-hour made-for-TV movies where they reunited casts from old TV shows like, I Dream of Jeannie: 15 Years Later, Return to Mayberry, Rescue from Gilligan's Island, etc. Now, instead of movies, they're more like mini-series.
    Back in 1981, The Brady Girls Get Married was filmed as a 2-hour movie, but NBC decided to chop it up into half-hour installments, and aired one episode every Saturday Night. It got decent ratings so that spun-off the series called, The Brady Brides. It didn't last very long. I think 6 episodes.

  26. skylark68

    Maybe it was my age but Roseanne was a really boring show when it first came out. I still remember that horrible movie she was in, She Devil. That about sums up my thoughts on Roseanne Barr.

    That thing was awful, major career mistake. Her basic comedy is pretty good, hopefully this reboot works.

  27. Ron Lee Green

    Back in 1981, The Brady Girls Get Married was filmed as a 2-hour movie, but NBC decided to chop it up into half-hour installments, and aired one episode every Saturday Night. It got decent ratings so that spun-off the series called, The Brady Brides. It didn't last very long. I think 6 episodes.

    That movie is the only reunion where all 9 original cast members appear.

  28. The question, I think, will be what those numbers do in the following weeks.

    The X-Files revival, for instance, had an insanely highly rated premiere in 2016 (16.19 million viewers), but it lost more than six million viewers the following week, and lost almost ten by the time the 2016 season ended. When it returned in 2018, it had a premiere with just over 5 million viewers, but even that number couldn't be held – it was down to under four million for the duration of the season.

    I expected the premiere numbers to be big. But I have no idea what it'll do going forward. For better or worse, I think it'll probably follow a similar pattern and fall off in a big way – not as a reflection of the quality of the show, but just a reflection that live viewing is no longer the preferred method for most people to watch a TV show these days.

  29. There was a big curiosity factor. I never watched the original series but tuned in because it was positively reviewed. I got some good laughs out of it and thought it was well written, but I just don't do sit-coms anymore and can't stand the laugh tracks (live or otherwise), so I won't be a regular viewer. I wonder if I'm part of a large boat on this one.

    Without getting political, I will say that I was okay with the way they handled the tribal political differences between the two sisters. I did not see one particular viewpoint being overly favored in front of the other; there was a comical balance on both sides – for every tit there was a tat (if I can put it that way). Maybe they've found a good formula for detente… equal time mocking. It did make me fondly remember what All in the Family used to routinely have fun with (current hot topics of the day), without worrying about the PC police.

  30. MatthewA

    I also have a theory about why so many old shows are getting rebooted and it has as much to do with lack of high-definition availability of the originals than the lack of new ideas in Hollywood and the lack of new excuses for the lack of new ideas.

    *The original show's best years predated the Disney/ABC merger.

    Will and Grace was shot on film, so high-def is available. Ditto with the original X-Files which was recently released on Blu-Ray.

    My guess is that TV companies and advertisers are beginning to re-evaluate the "18-49" demographic philosophy.

    The "18-49" philosophy was created in the 1960's, just as Baby Boomers were becoming adults.

    http://awfulannouncing.com/ratings/how-abc-created-18-49-demographic.html

    Some TV companies, like CBS, have been denouncing the "18-49" demo for awhile now.

    https://www.thewrap.com/cbs-waning-18-49-viewers-fewer-number-living-mom-and-dad-106756/

  31. revgen

    My guess is that TV companies and advertisers are beginning to re-evaluate the "18-49" demographic philosophy.

    Here's hoping. To give one small, anecdotal example of why it's shortsighted – I'm in the 18-49 demo, but my parents are both older than that age range. Both parents have more financial resources and free time than I have. To completely write-off that demo seems enormously shortsighted to me.

  32. I agree with Scott. It was just awful. I have a feeling the audience laughter was sweetened. I am actually sorry to see fine actors such as Laurie Metcalf and John Goodman in this… though I am sure they got a nice paycheck.

  33. Josh Steinberg

    The question, I think, will be what those numbers do in the following weeks.

    The X-Files revival, for instance, had an insanely highly rated premiere in 2016 (16.19 million viewers), but it lost more than six million viewers the following week, and lost almost ten by the time the 2016 season ended. When it returned in 2018, it had a premiere with just over 5 million viewers, but even that number couldn't be held – it was down to under four million for the duration of the season.

    I expected the premiere numbers to be big. But I have no idea what it'll do going forward. For better or worse, I think it'll probably follow a similar pattern and fall off in a big way – not as a reflection of the quality of the show, but just a reflection that live viewing is no longer the preferred method for most people to watch a TV show these days.

    Yeah, for all the hype over the premiere numbers, I figure by the debut of season 11 at the latest, it'll be another ABC standard 1.5 demo, 6 million viewer show.

    And that's not a bad thing, that's ABC standard for their most successful sitcoms now. The only bad thing I see coming out of it is this one monster rating will convince the networks that further stripmining the past is the way to go.

  34. I liked it. A lot. I found it to be timely, and intelligently written.

    The first episode seemed to be an introduction to the characters, most of whom I knew already. And the second was very timely, dealing with school violence & the isolation of "The Weird".

    Overall, it reminded me very much of an episode from the middle of the original run, when the show was huge in the ratings.

  35. ScottH

    I caught about 10 minutes of it and thought it was about what I expected – painful. Didn't need to see anymore.

    Agree with you 100%. I actually watched the whole episode, but will not watch the rest. Painful is probably the nicest word to describe it.

  36. I enjoyed the first two episodes mainly because of the writing and Laurie Metcalf, John Goodman and Sara Gilbert. Barr's acting has never been great and seems even worse now. She is basically just walking around "barking" out lines. I also agree with Jim above that there was something strange about the audience response. Considering it was filmed in front of an audience it sounded completely "canned". I will, however, give it another chance.

  37. Josh Steinberg

    Here's hoping. To give one small, anecdotal example of why it's shortsighted – I'm in the 18-49 demo, but my parents are both older than that age range. Both parents have more financial resources and free time than I have. To completely write-off that demo seems enormously shortsighted to me.

    I think that’s true (older people and disposable income) b it I believe the 18-49 demographic is favored is because they are more easily influenced by commercials than we old wiley people.

  38. Josh Steinberg

    The question, I think, will be what those numbers do in the following weeks.

    The X-Files revival, for instance, had an insanely highly rated premiere in 2016 (16.19 million viewers), but it lost more than six million viewers the following week, and lost almost ten by the time the 2016 season ended. When it returned in 2018, it had a premiere with just over 5 million viewers, but even that number couldn't be held – it was down to under four million for the duration of the season.

    I expected the premiere numbers to be big. But I have no idea what it'll do going forward. For better or worse, I think it'll probably follow a similar pattern and fall off in a big way – not as a reflection of the quality of the show, but just a reflection that live viewing is no longer the preferred method for most people to watch a TV show these days.

    I'm guessing the ratings will drop considerably. She's rude and just obnoxious. Maybe I'm wrong, but I certainly won't be watching.

  39. I really enjoyed the revival. It's already been renewed for another season.

    I'm a huge fan of the OS, own all the seasons on DVD (some from the original Anchor Bay, some from the Mill Creek re-releases) and thought the quality pretty well held up. Eager to see so many of the original guest characters return.

  40. I'll probably watch it, but I won't rush it. I didn't follow the show that closely when it first aired, and most of the episodes were very mediocre. But I do remember some very clever and insightful bits that occurred on occasion.

    Here's hoping the comments about the first episode of the reboot indicate that this is more of a pilot than a regular episode. Pilots are usually the most tiresome episode of any new show. You only know if the show will actually be good by the third or fourth episode.

  41. I watched the first two episodes tonight. I’m also watching the original on Amazon Prime. What a contrast! The new show is shrill, the majority of the humor is forced and the cast are caricatures of their former selves. There seems to be so much anger between the characters as opposed to the original when Roseanne and Dan would crack each other up despite all the problems they faced. Not going to give this much more of my time.

  42. I'll give it some time. I saw it last night. It was typical "Pilot Syndrome" where, in this case, the cast is trying to find their way back into a regular sitcom schedule after years of being off the air. I'll know for sure if the show's worth watching after the third or fourth regular episode.

  43. Loved it and the audience it favors. The networks are shocked that such a conservative show is so high in ratings. But all anyone really cares about is MONEY so they love it too. Now if they would just bring Tim Allen's Last Man Standing back, which I wouldn't be surprised at now, then I would be even more thrilled. 😀

  44. Jeffery_H

    Loved it and the audience it favors. The networks are shocked that such a conservative show is so high in ratings. But all anyone really cares about is MONEY so they love it too. Now if they would just bring Tim Allen's Last Man Standing back, which I wouldn't be surprised at now, then I would be even more thrilled. 😀

    Last Man Standing, living in their richy rich million dollar mansion was a joke, not surprised it was cancelled. Hard to believe Modern Family is still running, do these people have some magic money tree in their backyards? At least Roseanne is little bit more believable, living in a more normal, middle class home.

  45. Last night's episode was a shocking ditch of her earlier show. This article really sums it up:

    https://decider.com/2018/04/04/new-roseanne-advocates/

    In between remembering their own misspent youth, Roseanne directs Jackie to the spot on the wall where their father used to hang the belt he would regularly beat them with when they misbehaved. The Harris sisters’ complicated relationship with their father was always alluded to, but here it was being made explicit. Their father used to beat them as punishment. “Let’s face it, Jackie, our family was totally screwed up,” Roseanne says. “Which is probably why I got fat and why you can’t have a decent relationship with any man.” The lesson Roseanne takes away from these memories are to be a different kind of parent for Darlene.

    The tendrils of an abusive childhood were a subject often revisited on the show, always with a hard-line stance against physical punishment. This was a show that did not take kindly to abusers of any stripe. No matter how loudly and harshly Roseanne would yell at her kids, she drew a line. In the season 6 episode “The Driver’s Seat,” Roseanne impulsively spanks her pre-teen son D.J. after he took the car out and crashed it. She’s immediately wracked with guilt and ends up tearfully apologizing to D.J. She tells him she got hit when she was a kid and promises to never do it again. It’s one of the more affecting scene in the show’s history.

    In the (original) series finale, as the Roseanne character reminisces about the life that she had written about, she put it plainly: “Dan and I always felt that it was our responsibility as parents to improve the lives of our children by 50% over our own. And we did. We didn’t hit our children, as we were hit. We didn’t demand their unquestioning silence.”

    Here's the thing: and this isn't liberal/conservative. I've never once hit any of my kids. Not once. They grew up to be pretty good, well mannered kids. I've never had issues. Roseanne suddenly flipping where she stands on physical punishment is like rolling back one of the core concepts of the original series, where Barr would talk about how physical punishment messed her up; how there had to be a better way; etc. Now she's going after her daughter for not beating a kid after the granddaughter uses the kind of mouth you see in this show over and over and over again?

  46. mattCR

    Last night's episode was a shocking ditch of her earlier show. This article really sums it up:

    https://decider.com/2018/04/04/new-roseanne-advocates/

    Here's the thing: and this isn't liberal/conservative. I've never once hit any of my kids. Not once. They grew up to be pretty good, well mannered kids. I've never had issues. Roseanne suddenly flipping where she stands on physical punishment is like rolling back one of the core concepts of the original series, where Barr would talk about how physical punishment messed her up; how there had to be a better way; etc. Now she's going after her daughter for not beating a kid after the granddaughter uses the kind of mouth you see in this show over and over and over again?

    I thought maybe I was misremembering because Roseanne and Dan’s attitude struck me as very odd.

  47. JohnMor

    I thought maybe I was misremembering because Roseanne and Dan’s attitude struck me as very odd.

    No, this one is very odd. Not at all like the original which I really enjoyed. Watched the first episode and gave up. I may try one more, but wow, it has changed so much.

    Reboots like "Will and Grace" are fantastic. This is awful.

  48. Jeffery_H

    Loved it and the audience it favors. The networks are shocked that such a conservative show is so high in ratings. But all anyone really cares about is MONEY so they love it too. Now if they would just bring Tim Allen's Last Man Standing back, which I wouldn't be surprised at now, then I would be even more thrilled. 😀

    I didn't find the show only conservative. The lead character is, but Rosanne's sister is liberal. We have a young boy who is not your standard male kid, but the conservative Rosanne is open to allowing him to be different. Dan's worries are largely his concern for the kid's safety.

    I don't think my wife and I are in the "constantly struggling to get by" category, yet I enjoyed the original and the rebirth.

    I think it's been mentioned, but one thing I noticed is that the actors seemed self-conscious. It was like "we're on stage playing the people for the first time in years." I think that'll get better. We haven't watched the 3rd episode yet.

  49. Johnny Angell

    I didn't find the show only conservative. The lead character is, but Rosanne's sister is liberal. We have a young boy who is not your standard male kid, but the conservative Rosanne is open to allowing him to be different. Dan's worries are largely his concern for the kid's safety.

    I don't think my wife and I are in the "constantly struggling to get by" category, yet I enjoyed the original and the rebirth.

    I think it's been mentioned, but one thing I noticed is that the actors seemed self-conscious. It was like "we're on stage playing the people for the first time in years." I think that'll get better. We haven't watched the 3rd episode yet.

    I agree. I only watched it after reading a comment from Sara Gilbert and I actually found it pretty even handed, politically. And according to Sara, politics doesn’t play any more of a part in the remainder of the season.

    I found the premier very funny (reminded me of the heyday of “All in the Family”) and the other 2 eps quite funny as well, especially the third. I did notice the change in Roseanne and Dan’s characters a bit, but that happens in life as well sometimes as people get older. It obviously seems to have happened to Roseanne Barr in real life.

    So far I am enjoying the reboot immensely. Just separating the program from it’s titular star and her off-screen behavior and statements.

  50. JohnMor

    So far I am enjoying the reboot immensely. Just separating the program from it’s titular star and her off-screen behavior and statements.

    That's the hard part, to separate her off-screen behavior, because it still comes through in her performance and the writing.There are many "celebrities" whose shows I no longer watch because of their out-spoken, often un-educated views on life. Being celebrities, they think they can preach and spout their opinions to the rest of us.

  51. Depends upon your own personal views. Yours are no more valid than those on opposite side and are from those equally qualified to make them. I find her and those with courage enough to speak their mind a lot more likable than those that don't.

  52. Jeffery_H

    Depends upon your own personal views. Yours are no more valid than those on opposite side and are from those equally qualified to make them. I find her and those with courage enough to speak their mind a lot more likable than those that don't.

    I never thought of Roseanne Barr as being likable even back when she was doing stand up comedy.

  53. This week’s episode was a bit closer to the original Roseanne. But some of their “acting” needs to be dialed down several notches! Go back to season one where you acted like a believable family.

  54. Most of these people have actors have been out of the game since the first run, or are brand new to TV acting so I think we can give them a pass for a few episodes, to allow them to get their sea legs.

  55. sidburyjr

    I think that’s true (older people and disposable income) b it I believe the 18-49 demographic is favored is because they are more easily influenced by commercials than we old wiley people.

    That's completely correct. It has NOTHING to do with disposable income and everything to do with the fact that people have been found to tend toward "brand loyalty" at around age 49 (under 18 they aren't the decision makers in the household) and are no longer susceptible to commercials. For example (thought this has been true my whole life) I am only going to use DAWN DISHWASHING LIQUID. Nothing's going to change that. Other dish soap companies shouldn't waste their money on what I watch since they're never going to convince me. Conversely, DAWN shouldn't wast their money on what I watch either since they already have me.

  56. I agree with John. I thought last night's episode was good. The person who has been the biggest surprise to me in this reincarnation of the series is Sara Gilbert. She is the one person who is actually acting. (I thought she was good in the original series, but it was Laurie Metcalf back in the day who was my favourite.) I also like that the series has pretty much abandoned the political rhetoric of the first couple of episodes and in recent episodes has focused on family life.

  57. GlennF

    I agree with John. I thought last night's episode was good. The person who has been the biggest surprise to me in this reincarnation of the series is Sara Gilbert. She is the one person who is actually acting. (I thought she was good in the original series, but it was Laurie Metcalf back in the day who was my favourite.) I also like that the series has pretty much abandoned the political rhetoric of the first couple of episodes and in recent episodes has focused on family life.

    I also agree. They've calmed down the political stuff. I bailed after the first episode, but gave it another try and am starting to like it.

  58. I'm on the opposite end, just like the other 50% of the country. It was the first two shows that were the best I thought with the more political tone that I enjoyed most. Much in the same way as Tim Allen's Last Man Standing, loved that show.

  59. I really liked the last episode, again. This time, maybe since I've experienced the decline and the passing of both parents, I can identify with the characters very strongly.
    I thought they presented many of the issues very well.

  60. Since I’ve also been watching the original series I’ve figured out what’s missing: laughter. Dan, Roseanne and the kids don’t have any fun anymore. No bursting out laughing. No joking around. It’s all so serious!

  61. EricSchulz

    Since I’ve also been watching the original series I’ve figured out what’s missing: laughter. Dan, Roseanne and the kids don’t have any fun anymore. No bursting out laughing. No joking around. It’s all so serious!

    Well, they’re 20 to 30 years older and the times are very different now. I find that aspect pretty realistic.

  62. Garysb

    This was a good call by ABC. Putting what is right ahead of profits.

    Call me cynical but I think they cancelled it because they knew that was just too much to defend.

    And people will try to say that the world is "too PC" or "It was bad but she's a comedian. They step over the line sometimes." or say that the first amendment is being violated (which is just factually incorrect) or "the liberal media is out to get her" but she said something that was truly horrible. It wasn't a joke and anyone offended is having a perfectly reasonable reaction. I feel bad for the fans of the show and the cast & crew who are now out of work because she's awful but Rosanne is only one person to blame here.

  63. I've been seeing speculation that's the real reason ABC dumped it — the rest of the cast were all about to bail anyhow, so they pulled the plug to avoid looking like they were doing nothing.

  64. The Obsolete Man

    They could always being in Sandy Duncan and Ashton Kutcher to star with the rest of the cast in the revamped show The Connor Family.

    And Jason Bateman can tweet something stupid about it, then retract it.

    No chance in Hell of getting Roberta Flack to sing the theme song now.

  65. TravisR

    Call me cynical but I think they cancelled it because they knew that was just too much to defend.

    I agree I think ABC cancelled the show because they did not want to be associated with her. ABC counted on her show to increase viewership for their entire Tuesday night line up in the Fall . Without her show, ABC's other Tuesday night programs will have a more difficult time attracting viewers. There is no doubt this is a costly decision for ABC.

  66. Per TVline:

    Emma Kenney, the actress who portrayed Harris Conner-Healy on the now-cancelled Roseanne revival, is praising ABC for axing the sitcom in the wake of Roseanne Barr’s latest racist Twitter tirade.

    In a series of tweets posted Tuesday afternoon — after ABC boss Channing Dungey announced that Roseanne will not return for Season 11 — Kenney revealed that she intended on quitting regardless of the network’s decision:

    Emma Kenney

    @EmmaRoseKenney
    As I called my manager to quit working on Roseanne, I was told it was cancelled. I feel so empowered by @iamwandasykes , Channing Dungey and anyone at ABC standing up for morals and abuse of power. Bullies will NEVER win.
    3:13 PM – May 29, 2018

  67. Garysb

    Per TVline:

    Emma Kenney, the actress who portrayed Harris Conner-Healy on the now-cancelled Roseanne revival, is praising ABC for axing the sitcom in the wake of Roseanne Barr’s latest racist Twitter tirade.

    In a series of tweets posted Tuesday afternoon — after ABC boss Channing Dungey announced that Roseanne will not return for Season 11 — Kenney revealed that she intended on quitting regardless of the network’s decision:

    Emma Kenney

    @EmmaRoseKenney
    As I called my manager to quit working on Roseanne, I was told it was cancelled. I feel so empowered by @iamwandasykes , Channing Dungey and anyone at ABC standing up for morals and abuse of power. Bullies will NEVER win.
    3:13 PM – May 29, 2018

    Man, if ABC hadn't canceled, the next season would've been a clusterf*ck trainwreck that would've made season 4 of Welcome Back Kotter look good.

  68. Mike Frezon

    Stunning that anyone could 1.) think that way, and 2.) think it would be a good idea to put it in the public forum.

    I'd add that it's stunning Roseanne Barr would have so little concern for how her actions would affect others. Because, of course, even though her name is the show's title, there were hundreds of other people working in the cast, film crew and writers room, all of whom are now out of work through absolutely no fault of their own. If Roseanne wants to think these things, that's her right, but it was extremely shortsighted of her not to think about her coworkers' livelihoods before posting this kind of thing.

    I'm sure these people, who are talented professionals, will rebound sooner or later, but it might take a while. Roseanne was on the fall schedule, so it was probably going to go into production around mid-July I would guess in order to make a late September premiere date. I'm not sure if the cast and crew, who were committed to that timeline, will be able to get new jobs on other shows that quickly, because most shows that are going for the fall are already cast and presumably have made offers to crew and writers already. So while they'll probably be onto another job eventually, it may not be as quickly as they were expecting to have work again had the new season continued.

    Furthermore, if it had been literally anybody else in the cast or crew making these statements, ABC could have simply refused to pick up that person's contract and written them out of the show while continuing to employ everyone else. It's not like they hadn't already killed John Goodman's character once. But since it was the titular star, she had to cost everyone else their jobs, too.

    Because tonight is Tuesday, ABC had a Roseanne repeat scheduled to lead tonight's programming. I wonder how they'll replace it.

    They can just air The Middle repeats in its place for the summer if they want to (The Middle was the Tuesday 8pm anchor show before Roseanne joined the lineup in March anyway), but they can't bring The Middle back in the fall because it just concluded its tremendously successful final season as designated by the writers. I bet ABC wishes they could have that show back after all now, and I wonder what they'll do with the open Tuesday anchor position come fall.

  69. Garysb

    I didn't know that ABC had refused to air an episode of "Blackish" and that its creator is seeking to end his deal with ABC so that he can go to Netflix. Hope if he leaves it doesn't ruin the show.

    This is a bit more about Black-ish than Roseanne, but since you brought it up: Shonda Rhimes' deal with Netflix allows her to remain involved in her existing ABC shows; she'll just create new ones for Netflix. I suspect that if Barris does leave his overall deal with ABC, there would be a proviso worked out in his contract with Netflix to allow him to retain some level of oversight of Black-ish and Grown-ish. We'll see.

    But, yes, the situation with Barris possibly leaving, along with the unexpected implosion of last season's #1 program, does leave multiple possible issues for ABC to deal with in terms of their comedy slate.

  70. Jake Lipson

    This is a bit more about Black-ish than Roseanne, but since you brought it up: Shonda Rhimes' deal with Netflix allows her to remain involved in her existing ABC shows; she'll just create new ones for Netflix. I suspect that if Barris does leave his overall deal with ABC, there would be a proviso worked out in his contract with Netflix to allow him to retain some level of oversight of Black-ish and Grown-ish. We'll see.

    But, yes, the situation with Barris possibly leaving, along with the unexpected implosion of last season's #1 program, does leave multiple possible issues for ABC to deal with in terms of their comedy slate.

    Also, Modern Family is dropping like a rock. It wouldnt surprise me if The Goldbergs beats it consistently next season.

  71. The Obsolete Man

    Also, Modern Family is dropping like a rock.

    Modern Family is a whole other can of worms. I think they need to officially announce next season as its final run and hope that the writers can figure out how to write a satisfying conclusion (although at this point even that is questionable.)

    While I think The Goldbergs is still a great show, there's also the practical question of how much longer it can run and stay in the '80s, which is fundamental to its construct. ABC probably hopes the '90s spinoff takes off and can be groomed as an eventual potential replacement for it.

    So yeah, ABC's comedy lineup is obviously in a state of transition right now — which certainly isn't being helped by Roseanne blowing up in their face this way.

  72. Modern Family is a zombie show that should have ended after season 8. The point where they could end this show satisfactorily has long since passed. They're about as modern as a Model T. The difference is that no one from that show has made a fool of themselves in public…yet. With Roseanne you expected that up to a point, but now she lost the support of her own cast and crew.

  73. MatthewA

    Modern Family is a zombie show that should have ended after season 8. The point where they could end this show satisfactorily has long since passed. They're about as modern as a Model T. The difference is that no one from that show has made a fool of themselves in public…yet. With Roseanne you expected that up to a point, but now she lost the support of her own cast and crew.

    Ariel Winter sort of tried, but if the worst anyone from the MF cast has done is show a little skin after turning 18, they've gotten lucky.

  74. Who would have thought Cybill Shepherd would turn out to be the least unstable star of a successful Carsey-Werner sitcom? They must have enough egg on their faces right now for a musical version of Pink Flamingos.

    The Obsolete Man

    Ariel Winter sort of tried, but if the worst anyone from the MF cast has done is show a little skin after turning 18, they've gotten lucky.

    Shh! Don't give Roseanne any ideas. At this point, she just might be that desperate.

  75. Jake Lipson

    Modern Family is a whole other can of worms. I think they need to officially announce next season as its final run and hope that the writers can figure out how to write a satisfying conclusion (although at this point even that is questionable.)

    Series Final, Ed O'Neil wakes up and sees Peggy Bundy, and just stars balling his eyes out and screams oh god what did i do wrong!

  76. Jake Lipson

    Reaction from others associated with ABC to their cancellation decision:

    https://tvline.com/2018/05/29/roseanne-cancelled-abc-reaction-shonda-rhimes-viola-davis/

    It's clear to me that ABC's decision to axe Roseanne was only made because of the financial implications for the network. I cannot believe that it had anything to do with being "the right thing to do." They don't seem to make corporate decisions at ABC based on right and wrong.

  77. Mike Frezon

    They don't seem to make corporate decisions at ABC based on right and wrong.

    There aren't many (any?) corporations anywhere that do. It's all about the bottom line and shareholder happiness.

  78. Mike Frezon

    It's clear to me that ABC's decision to axe Roseanne was only made because of the financial implications for the network. I cannot believe that it had anything to do with being "the right thing to do." They don't seem to make corporate decisions at ABC based on right and wrong.

    Agreed.

    I'd almost bet advertisers called this morning losing their shit over this, which prompted a swift reaction.

  79. Malcolm R

    There aren't many (any?) corporations anywhere that do. It's all about the bottom line and shareholder happiness.

    Exactly. But there are many who are lauding ABC for doing the "courageous" thing because it was "the right thing to do" (Bob Iger's words). Yet none of that is really at play here.

    But the spin artists are hard at work making it seem that way.

  80. If they didn't cancel it, it would have essentially cancelled itself if everyone else had walked out on it. Iger is no knight in shining armor himself, just a businessman saying what he believes people want to hear.

  81. The Obsolete Man

    Looks like a good old fashioned morals clause did the trick

    I wonder if insiders call that the "Sheen Clause". I think that stuff is pretty standard issue these days.

  82. ABC was already airing a rerun of The Middle tonight at 8:30/7:30c. The Facebook page just confirmed there will be two reruns, beginning at 8/7c. So, that replaces the previously scheduled rerun of Roseanne for tonight and for the time being on the summer schedule, just like I thought they would do.

    Like I said, they won't be able to use that in the fall, though, because The Middle just ended its (terrific) final season.

  83. Hulu has nuked it. It's still visible, but you can't play any episodes.

    Correction: It appears it's only visible if you had watched it on Hulu. It's in the history. Otherwise, it appears to have been removed entirely.

  84. Amazon Prime has streaming rights to the previous seasons 1-9. So far you can still play those. But they also have streaming rights to The Cosby Show and haven't even pulled those yet, so they're behind the times and may be content to leave them up for anyone who wants to seek them out

    A standup show Barr was to do has also been cancelled:

    https://www.thewrap.com/roseanne-barr-stand-up-canceled-theater-mgm-national-harbor/

    I wonder if she will work again after this?

    If so, it will probably be a while.

  85. I know I will never watch another TV show from Carsey-Werner again under any circumstances. They enabled too much horrible behavior for me to devote any more time to them than I already have. If I could go back in time to the 1980s and warn everybody not to enable these people, I would.

  86. MatthewA

    Who would have thought Cybill Shepherd would turn out to be the least unstable star of a successful Carsey-Werner sitcom?

    You forget John Lithgow and Jane Curtin. In fact, the 3rd Rock cast is all doing pretty well. French Stewart isn't calling anyone names on Twitter, Joseph Gordon-Levitt hasn't went on a drug fueled meltdown, no nude photos of Kristen Johnston…

  87. TravisR

    Call me cynical but I think they cancelled it because they knew that was just too much to defend.

    Channing Dungey, the president of ABC, is black so I do think it's likely that she was personally appalled by the tweet. That being said, Dungey and Iger are businesspeople and they knew that tweet would make the show toxic to advertisers. What good are high ratings if nobody wants to associate their brand with the show?

    Jake Lipson

    I'd add that it's stunning Roseanne Barr would have so little concern for how her actions would affect others. Because, of course, even though her name is the show's title, there were hundreds of other people working in the cast, film crew and writers room, all of whom are now out of work through absolutely no fault of their own. If Roseanne wants to think these things, that's her right, but it was extremely shortsighted of her not to think about her coworkers' livelihoods before posting this kind of thing.

    I agree, but I also think that Roseanne hasn't exactly hid the type of person she is. She was known as an absolute terror during the show's original run, chewing up and spitting out writers regularly. And her toxic brand has been on proud display on Twitter for years now, a big part of why the revival was controversial in the first place.

    So yes, it was extremely selfish of Roseanne to do this to her cast and crew. But everybody who makes the show had to know this was a possibility when they signed on.

    The Obsolete Man

    Ariel Winter sort of tried, but if the worst anyone from the MF cast has done is show a little skin after turning 18, they've gotten lucky.

    To be fair to Ariel Winter, she had a very toxic home life. I give her credit for finding her way to the other side and not becoming yet another cautionary tale.

    The Obsolete Man

    If they'd put his show on Tuesdays instead of that other one, he would've been the one to get a second season.

    The biggest problem is that "Alex Inc." just never quite worked as a show. Good cast, but they couldn't make the concept work.

    Mike Frezon

    Exactly. But there are many who are lauding ABC for doing the "courageous" thing because it was "the right thing to do" (Bob Iger's words). Yet none of that is really at play here.

    Sometimes what is right and what is financially savvy are aligned. Given how quickly this got cancelled, Iger and company didn't wait for the number crunchers to validate what they knew in their guts to be true. That's worth something.

  88. I'm sad for the cast and crew of the show, the team that made her look good, the team she obviously didn't give two flips about. More than one hundred hard working folks are out of a job because she couldn't keep her loud mouth shut.

  89. Carabimero

    I'm sad for the cast and crew of the show, the team that made her look good, the team she obviously didn't give two flips about. More than one hundred hard working folks are out of a job because she couldn't keep her loud mouth shut.

    And you'd know better than me but I imagine that alot of shows already have writers and crews for the upcoming season so some of them might have a hard time finding a gig and could be in real financial trouble.

  90. TravisR

    And you'd know better than me but I imagine that alot of shows already have writers and crews for the upcoming season so some of them might have a hard time finding a gig and could be in real financial trouble.

    Since you mentioned it, yes. Two people who just lost their jobs on the show were friends of mine, both with families to feed. When you're working on a #1 show, you tell yourself you can relax a little and maybe spend more because you're guaranteed work for at least one more year. Except when your star ruins it not just for writers and directors and other actors, but accountants, costumers, sound guys, and on and on. To make it worse, like you said, it's even harder to get work this time of year.

    I'm just sick about it because a lot of good people will soon be hurting.

  91. The upside (if there is any, which isn't much) is the fact that the nine episodes that aired this season were really highly-rated and visible. That makes "I worked on the Roseanne revival" a notable resume item. People hiring won't penalize those associated with the show for Barr's idiocy. They should all be able to land new jobs on merit — eventually.

    The problem is of course that, as has been noted, mot of next season's shows have already been making hires. So it will take longer than these people deserve for them to find work again, which sucks. But I think they'll eventually be able to do it. The more pressing question is what they do in the meantime.

  92. Garysb

    Also the reruns of the show are being pulled from Paramount Network, TV land, CMT, and Hulu.

    That is true– however, there will still be some who will think that the O-R 1988-97 series has much going for it (after all, look how quickly my worries about I Spy were eased when some people here said that Bill Cosby's comedy albums were still worth listening to and his Fat Albert animated series were still worth seeing, even after Cosby's assault conviction).

  93. bmasters9

    That is true– however, there will still be some who will think that the O-R 1988-97 series has much going for it (after all, look how quickly my worries about I Spy were eased when some people here said that Bill Cosby's comedy albums were still worth listening to and his Fat Albert animated series were still worth seeing, even after Cosby's assault conviction).

    I have less trouble listening to Michael Jackson in this day and age, particularly the early years pre-Neverland and that Pepsi commercial where his head caught on fire*, than to Bill Cosby, seeing how one was acquitted twice and the other just convicted. The same media let one take the fall while propping up the other until they could do so no more.

    *What might have been if not for that.

  94. MatthewA

    So when is the aptly named Arrested Development going to reprimand Jeffrey Tambor similarly?

    Tambor is going to have serious difficulty finding work in the future, the season's already in the can, I don't know that there's anything more to be done in his case.

  95. MatthewA

    I have less trouble listening to Michael Jackson than to Bill Cosby, seeing how one was acquitted twice and the other just convicted. The same media let one take the fall while propping up the other.

    That's a pretty good point there! Don't know how to say why, but you've got a good few kernels of truth in there.

  96. Adam Lenhardt

    Tambor is going to have serious difficulty finding work in the future, the season's already in the can, I don't know that there's anything more to be done in his case.

    Now I know why Mel Brooks made him the villain in Life Stinks.

  97. I feel really bad for the show's production staff that now has to scramble to find jobs.

    As for ABC, though – WTF, how could they *not* know that this was going to happen? Roseanne's been doing this kind of stuff for a long time. Maybe you should have thought this through a little more before greenlighting this revival?

  98. Adam Lenhardt

    What good are high ratings if nobody wants to associate their brand with the show?

    Truth there too– where would O-R Jack Lord Five-O have been if Jack had said such things? Lincoln wouldn't have been one of the biggest sponsors of that 1968-80 classic!

  99. Greg.K

    I feel really bad for the show's staff that now has to scramble to find jobs.

    As for ABC, though – WTF, how could they *not* know that this was going to happen? Roseanne's been doing this kind of stuff for a long time. Maybe you should have thought this through a little more before greenlighting this revival?

    She had a much lower profile prior to the success of the revival. While people did repost things she did in the past such as dressing up like Hitler and giving the Nazi salute, it was in the past . I believe when the revival came together she stayed off social media. She even stated her kids took her Twitter away from her. Maybe staying off Twitter was something ABC required before going ahead with the revival. Once she had an enormous hit she probably thought she could do what she wanted. We just don't know all that lead up to this.

  100. Seems extreme to punish her in this way, when so many others were involved in the production of the show or were sitting back at home enjoying watching it on tv.

    Seems like a more productive punishment would've been more suitable.

  101. Garysb

    She had a much lower profile prior to the success of the revival. While people did repost things she did in the past such as dressing up like Hitler and giving the Nazi salute, it was in the past . I believe when the revival came together she stayed off social media. She even stated her kids took her Twitter away from her. Maybe staying off Twitter was something ABC required before going ahead with the revival. Once she had an enormous hit she probably thought she could do what she wanted. We just don't know all that lead up to this.

    Yes, she had a lower profile – but they had to figure if this show was successful that that would change and she'd be a very visible polarizing figure. Now they have a huge mess.

  102. LeoA

    Seems extreme to punish her in this way, when so many others were involved in the production of the show or were sitting back at home enjoying watching it on tv.

    Seems like a more productive punishment would've been more suitable.

    I don't know what this means. The fact the a show is popular shouldn't shield its star from consequences. What she said was vile, and because she's the face of the show, it poisoned the entire well. I would have been appalled had ABC not taken such strong action.

  103. Adam Lenhardt

    I don't know what this means. The fact the a show is popular shouldn't shield its star from consequences. What she said was vile, and because she's the face of the show, it poisoned the entire well. I would have been appalled had ABC not taken such strong action.

    I believe my post was quite clear.

    I'm quite sure she could've been punished in a less extreme manner, rather than cancelling everything. The other people involved in this show shouldn't have to be punished, nor those that may have been enjoying it and have decided to accept her apology.

  104. LeoA

    I believe my post was quite clear.

    I'm quite sure she could've been punished in a less extreme manner, rather than cancelling everything. The other people involved in this show shouldn't have to be punished, nor those that may have been enjoying it and have decided to accept her apology.

    It's a longstanding pattern, though, so you know the apology is pretty much bullshit.

    But that aside, we don't know how badly the money people reacted to this. I doubt ABC's first reaction was "CANCEL EVERYTHING!". But I'm willing to bet that something happened to make the show unairable if they still wanted to make money.

    It's the advertisers that drive the industry. If enough of them didn't want to weather a potential shitstorm, ABC would've had no choice.

    And yes, it sucks for the other hundred or two people involved with the show. But when the star, face, and titular character goes off the rails, it's cancellation or call Sandy Duncan.

  105. LeoA

    I believe my post was quite clear.

    I'm quite sure she could've been punished in a less extreme manner, rather than cancelling everything. The other people involved in this show shouldn't have to be punished, nor those that may have been enjoying it and have decided to accept her apology.

    I am sure a large part of the reason for the cancellation has to do with advertisers. I am sure the show would get very high ratings but advertisers wouldn't, most likely, want to be associated it. Any company that advertised on the show would most likely be subject to calls for a boycott on social media. While I am also sure other people would go out of their way to support the advertisers, the publicity would put the advertisers in a negative light which the advertisers wouldn't want.

  106. As has been semi-jokingly inferred a couple times, it's too bad they couldn't have figured out a way to get Barr off the show while still allowing the cast and crew to continue (if they wanted), as NBC did years ago with Valerie Harper and The Hogan Family (write out Barr and change to The Connors)? But I'd imagine there's not an easy way to eject her from the show, as she's also a producer and likely would still be collecting a paycheck in some manner if the show continued.

    I'd guess a number of the cast just said, "I'm done." Even the young actress that plays Darlene's daughter, Harris, was preparing to quit, and the veterans like John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf certainly don't need the work. As Robert said above, the defections would make any continuation impossible so ABC just pulled the plug.

  107. Malcolm R

    Maybe, but the show continued for several years, keeping cast and crew employed, and she never appeared on it again.

    However, threat of a lawsuit would be another solid financial reason for not trying to continue.

  108. I wrote this on another forum:
    "Roseanne" without Roseanne would be like "I Love Lucy' without Lucy, "MASH" without Hawkeye also known as "AfterMASH", and "All In The Family" without Mike and Gloria also known as the final season of "All In The Family" and "Archie Bunker's Place" The later shows, in my opinion, were much worse than what they were. Even "All In The Family" when Jean Stapleton was a regular after the 'kids" went to California was not very funny except the two parter when they went to California to see Mike and Gloria. It's the whole group that works. And just because I mentioned it and it is on youtube. "All In the Family" – California here We Are

  109. Malcolm R

    the veterans like John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf certainly don't need the work.

    I'm sure by the end of the day there wouldn't be a single advertiser left, which makes it pretty much a moot point. But, beyond that, if you were John Goodman, Laurie Metcalf or Sarah Gilbert, would you want to continue having anything to do with the show? What's left?

  110. Two main actors denounced; and two of the writers quit. There was no way forward. Roseanne basically blew her own show up. What's funny is this is kind of how things fell apart the first time, when she went ridiculous on the national anthem, grabbed her crotch and spit on the ground at a ballgame.

  111. mattCR

    Two main actors denounced; and two of the writers quit. There was no way forward. Roseanne basically blew her own show up. What's funny is this is kind of how things fell apart the first time, when she went ridiculous on the national anthem, grabbed her crotch and spit on the ground at a ballgame.

    To be fair, that sorry event happened in 1990, and the original ROSEANNE series run continued until 1997: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com…nthem-25th-years-ago-2015jul24-htmlstory.html

  112. LeoA

    The other people involved in this show shouldn't have to be punished, nor those that may have been enjoying it and have decided to accept her apology.

    With all due respect, the people who may have been enjoying it aren't the ones she insulted.

  113. Adam Lenhardt

    Sometimes what is right and what is financially savvy are aligned. Given how quickly this got cancelled, Iger and company didn't wait for the number crunchers to validate what they knew in their guts to be true. That's worth something.

    Adam Lenhardt

    I would have been appalled had ABC not taken such strong action.

    I'm going to disagree with you on this, Adam. ABC did not take such strong action because of the contents of the tweet. They made the decision because it was in their best interest financially. They didn't cancel the show because they were offended by her words. ABC has a record of not disciplining bad or controversial behavior. They pulled the plug knowing instantly the impact of the extreme toxicity of her actions.

    So, in my opinion, ABC was just watching out for its bottom line. Nothing more.

  114. Per TVline Roseanne has reactivated her Tweeter account and commented on her firing:

    Roseanne Barr has more to say. Nearly 11 hours after ABC cancelled Roseanne, the show’s star reactivated her Twitter account and shared the following statement:

    “Don’t feel sorry for me, guys!!-I just want to apologize to the hundreds of people,and wonderful writers (all liberal) and talented actors who lost their jobs on my show due to my stupid tweet. I will be on Joe Rogan’s podcast friday.”

    Not sure who said they feel sorry for her but whatever.

  115. Mike Frezon

    So, in my opinion, ABC was just watching out for its bottom line. Nothing more.

    Even if that's the case, I'm glad a line was finally drawn in the sand somewhere. If it was the advertisers who were holding the stick, so be it.

  116. That sounds like a really generous apology. Not.

    I''m not sure why she felt the need to mention that all the writers were liberal in her tweet. If the issue she's apologizing for is people losing their jobs, their politics had nothing to do with it at all and is neither here nor there.

    Do the motives for ABC cancelling it really matter? This is one of those cases where "the right thing to do" and "advertisers bolting due to toxicity" are not mutually exclusive. The end result that the show is not continuing is the same. I don't really care how they got to it.

  117. Adam Lenhardt

    Even if that's the case, I'm glad a line was finally drawn in the sand somewhere. If it was the advertisers who were holding the stick, so be it.

    I'd say that's fair (even if I'm not certain it was solely the advertisers which led them to make this decision).

    It just really burns my hide that people may be under the wrong impression that the ABC suits really cared about the things she wrote and were offended at the ugliness of the words and that that's the impetus that propelled them into action.

    If they really cared about their employees saying offensive things about people (and groups of people), they have had a number of other instances in which they could have taken some kind off action…and didn't.

  118. Mike Frezon

    I'd say that's fair (even if I'm not certain it was solely the advertisers which led them to make this decision).

    It just really burns my hide that people may be under the wrong impression that the ABC suits really cared about the things she wrote and were offended at the ugliness of the words and that that's the impetus that propelled them into action.

    If they really cared about their employees saying offensive things about people (and groups of people), they have had a number of other instances in which they could have taken some kind off action…and didn't.

    No question this was a cold business decision. However, I'm not going to be so cynical and not suggest that even those cold-blooded Disney/ABC suits didn't think that awful and nasty tweet cross a line that they couldn't ignore any further.

  119. joshEH

    The best choice here would've been to keep the show on the air for the sake of people's jobs, and recast Roseanne with Christopher Plummer.

    Roseanne is a co-creator and producer on the show. Therefore, any attempt to reboot it would likely still involve a payment to her, even if she wasn't appearing onscreen.

    ABC just cancelled the #1 show on television this season, and it was the first time they've had the #1 show in two decades. If there was any other way to handle this, I think they would have gone with the other way.

    But there wasn't.

  120. Adam Lenhardt

    With all due respect, the people who may have been enjoying it aren't the ones she insulted.

    I don’t nderstand what this means.

    I was insulted but I did get some entertainment from watching the new show.

    I’m a 53 year old white guy. Are you saying Im not the people who are insulted?

    Are only certain people allowed to be insulted by the tweets?

  121. Robert Crawford

    No question this was a cold business decision. However, I'm not going to be so cynical and not suggest that even those cold-blooded Disney/ABC suits didn't think that awful and nasty tweet cross a line that they couldn't ignore any further.

    I’m with you on that Robert. I’m not that jaded yet to think it was all money and not any real feelings involved.

  122. Jake Lipson

    Roseanne is a co-creator and producer on the show. Therefore, any attempt to reboot it would likely still involve a payment to her, even if she wasn't appearing onscreen.

    ABC just cancelled the #1 show on television this season, and it was the first time they've had the #1 show in two decades. If there was any other way to handle this, I think they would have gone with the other way.

    But there wasn't.

    I’m thinking you didn’t catch the facitiousness of the comment.

  123. TonyD

    I’m with you on that Robert. I’m not that jaded yet to think it was all money and not any real feelings involved.

    Listen, I'm not going overboard with praise because Disney/ABC knew her twitter track record before hiring her last year. You sleep with a dog, you're bound to get some fleas. However, without much doubt, I think they were having some misgivings and saw this latest tweet storm the last one they can tolerate as business people and as human beings.

  124. TonyD

    I’m a 53 year old white guy. Are you saying Im not the people who are insulted?

    Are only certain people allowed to be insulted by the tweets?

    It's not a question of "allowed to". This was a very specific insult, with a very specific history. You are, of course, allowed to be offended by the tweet; I would imagine most decent people were. But neither you nor I were demeaned by it.

  125. Tonight, I watched a segment with Valarie Jarrett and she said Bob Iger called her personally and apologized to her on Tuesday. Also, he told her they were cancelling Roseanne which was before the formal cancellation announcement by Disney/ABC before 11:00 a.m. Pacific Time. They moved rather quickly in this regard as I suspected they had prior discussions about Barr and her tweets and that these latest tweets were the last straw.

  126. Robert Crawford

    They moved rather quickly in this regard as I suspected they had prior discussions about Barr and her tweets and that these latest tweets were the last straw.

    (More generally).

    Does Barr have a reputation of being difficult to work with ?

    I suspect the only reason a tv network would keep a "difficult to work with" actor/producer around, is if the show still brings in huge advertising revenue.

    If advertisers were threatening (or already) to pull out on the show from the latest tirade, then this would make cancelation decisions easy.

  127. jcroy

    (More generally).

    Does Barr have a reputation of being difficult to work with ?

    I suspect the only reason a tv network would keep a "difficult to work with" actor/producer around, is if the show still brings in huge advertising revenue.

    If advertisers were threatening (or already) to pull out on the show from the latest tirade, then this would make cancelation decisions easy.

    That would normally be the case if this drag on for days. However, the tweets came out Monday night and Tuesday morning the show was cancelled by Disney/ABC. It seems like they didn't wait for the sponsor fallout to materialize before they acted as they knew what was coming and decided to cut their losses at 10:45 a.m. PT.

  128. Robert Crawford

    That would normally be the case if this drag on for days. However, the tweets came out Monday night and Tuesday morning the show was cancelled by Disney/ABC. It seems like they didn't wait for the sponsor fallout to materialize before they acted as they knew what was coming and decided to cut their losses at 10:45 a.m. PT.

    Worth

    Oh, yeah. Absolute nightmare, by all accounts.

    With a "hot potato" already on their hands becoming a "radioactive hot potato" overnight, it seems like ABC acted quickly to "wash their hands" of it so that they didn't have to go through any "nuclear fallout".

  129. Robert Crawford

    No question this was a cold business decision. However, I'm not going to be so cynical and not suggest that even those cold-blooded Disney/ABC suits didn't think that awful and nasty tweet cross a line that they couldn't ignore any further.

    I won't prolong this. But unfortunately for me, I AM going to completely be that cynical based on other recent similar events involving ABC in which they did nothing.

    While I would love nothing more than to believe that they took action due to some sense of moral indignation/outrage, I can't.

  130. Pitch: Prestige-TV single-camera sitcom, dark comedy, vehicle for John Goodman, where his unnamed character's unnamed wife suddenly dies, and he has to move on while quietly coming to terms with the fact that she was a massively-awful person. Co-starring, let's say, Laurie Metcalf, Sara Gilbert, and Sarah Chalke.

  131. Not that any of us really will know the real truth or reasons but the cancellation came really fast and and seemingly before any or very few adverts could have made any decisions to stop paying for advertising.

  132. Yeah it’s not unprecedented for a show to remove the lead and continue and I’d check it out but as other have said, Barr would undoubtedly receive money since she is basically the show.

  133. Garysb

    [​IMG]
    The makers of Ambien have responded to Roseanne's claim that the medication was possibly responsible for her tweets.

    Sanofi US

    ✔@SanofiUS

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

    9:57 AM – May 30, 2018

    Nice try Trailer trash. You tell her Sanofi. Let's keep this woman off the air-Forever.

  134. Mike Frezon

    I won't prolong this. But unfortunately for me, I AM going to completely be that cynical based on other recent similar events involving ABC in which they did nothing.

    While I would love nothing more than to believe that they took action due to some sense of moral indignation/outrage, I can't.

    IMO, nothing this egregious comparing another human being to an ape.

  135. Jake Lipson

    Roseanne is tweeting (again.)

    It's amazing to me that she seems to be surprised by cast member statements condemning her.

    http://deadline.com/2018/05/roseanne-barr-racist-tweet-statement-twitter-supporters-1202399797/

    Is it really surprising???? We have good reasons to be cynical about corporate suits and their motivations for cancelling the show. However, there is no cynicism regarding her true feelings and thoughts. She is, what she's shown herself to be which means those apologetic tweets from yesterday were nothing, but BS.

  136. I guess it depends on what their contracts say but wouldn't at least the actors and writers have to be paid for the 13 episodes ABC ordered before they canceled the show? Is there a standard procedure when shows get cancelled prior to the completion of the episodes ordered? I have heard of episode orders being reduced say from 22 to 18 but I don't recall hearing if the salaries for the episodes ordered and then reduced had to be paid.

  137. The cynical version of this is: Roseanne is (or was) a businesswoman who should at least understand the need for the other actors on the show to distance themselves from her to protect their own careers. Even if they didn't actually find it abhorrent (which I 100% believe they do), they would still have to project an image of being disappointed in her. So she should be able to figure that out.

    But then, she should have been able to figure out that calling another human being an ape would ruin her show and she didn't.

    How do you type that out and look at it and think "I should absolutely tweet this!"?

  138. Garysb

    [​IMG]ik
    The makers of Ambien have responded to Roseanne's claim that the medication was possibly responsible for her tweets.

    Sanofi US

    ✔@SanofiUS

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

    9:57 AM – May 30, 2018

    Ambien can do strange things, not that she was affected, doesn't sound like it. I'd get up and clean the house, cook meals. One time drove five miles to do my grocery shopping. Police came to my door the next day, apparently I bumped a car in front of me in the parking lot, thankfully no damage. Hit and run/unattended vehicle. Not a single memory of any of it.

    Also discovered if I took one at midnight, every memory from 6 pm. to midnight vanished. Stopped taking it about ten years ago. Scary stuff.

  139. As a general rule, people (Roseanne, and everyone else too) need to ask themselves "What benefit is created from tweeting this?"

    If they can't answer that, don't tweet.

    She created no benefit — and in fact lost a lot of people a lot of benefit — from tweeting comparing a human being to an ape. And she's continuing to do no benefit to herself by sending out more tweets.

    The most benefit she can do herself right now is to step away from the limelight and hope this eventually blows over. I'm not sure that it will, but every time she tweets something else, she perpetuates the media focus on her earlier tweet, and that's definitely not helping.

  140. Garysb

    I guess it depends on what their contracts say but wouldn't at least the actors and writers have to be paid for the 13 episodes ABC ordered before they canceled the show?

    No, I don't think so. Because work hadn't yet begun on the new season, I think it's the same as if ABC had just cancelled it in the first place. I could be wrong though.

  141. I don't think Michael Richards , Kramer on Seinfeld was forgiven for his racist rant. While he appeared on "Curb Your Enthusiasm " for the "Seinfeld" reunion story line , I don't think he has done much else since that happened. A quick look found he was in a Kirstie Alley sitcom on TVland and a segment of Jerry Seinfeld's "Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee" but not much else.

  142. The Obsolete Man

    You forget John Lithgow and Jane Curtin. In fact, the 3rd Rock cast is all doing pretty well. French Stewart isn't calling anyone names on Twitter, Joseph Gordon-Levitt hasn't went on a drug fueled meltdown, no nude photos of Kristen Johnston…

    We liked French Stewart on "Mom" occasionally, especially season 1. What else has he been doing?

  143. Malcolm R

    As has been semi-jokingly inferred a couple times, it's too bad they couldn't have figured out a way to get Barr off the show while still allowing the cast and crew to continue (if they wanted), as NBC did years ago with Valerie Harper and The Hogan Family (write out Barr and change to The Connors)? But I'd imagine there's not an easy way to eject her from the show, as she's also a producer and likely would still be collecting a paycheck in some manner if the show continued.

    I'd guess a number of the cast just said, "I'm done." Even the young actress that plays Darlene's daughter, Harris, was preparing to quit, and the veterans like John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf certainly don't need the work. As Robert said above, the defections would make any continuation impossible so ABC just pulled the plug.

    "Dan", starring John Goodman

  144. I hate to say it, but thank God Shelley Winters isn't alive to see this!*

    Oh, and lest anyone try and invoke the names of All in the Family and Archie Bunker again:

    *I recently visited her grave. She wasn't spinning yet.

  145. Jimbo64

    She won’t be missed in my house

    Same here. I've never cared for her as a person, nor thought she was funny. I had no desire to watch her rebooted show, even though I do like some of the other actors. It's too bad other people are now out of work because of Barr, but her show being off the air will not even go noticed in our household.

  146. I guess they're looking for some way to continue after all.

    http://deadline.com/2018/05/roseanne-spinoff-chances-sara-gilbert-tom-werner-abc-1202400297/

    Also, it turns out yesterday was the first day of work for the writers on the next season, and they were at work together when they heard the cancellation news from the press. Here's an interview with writer-executive producer Dave Caplan, which I think is worth reading because it reminds us how many other people were affected by Roseanne's poor decision-making.

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/roseanne-canceled-inside-writers-rooms-reaction-1115654

  147. I was of course disturbed by Roseanne's awful comments – and also a bit bewildered – in the show, her son is married to a black woman, she has a black grandaughter she adored, and a gender-fluid grandson she also adored. In the original run, there were black and gay characters realistically and sensitively portrayed. Since Roseanne is one of the creators of the new version and heavily influenced the content of the original, the racism really took me by surprise. I have not been a big fan, but I did appreciate the diversity of the characters on the show, old and new.

  148. Something struck me when the reboot was coming. ABC did an hour long special about the original show and the reboot. It had a section about several people who got their start on the original Roseanne, how it had launched them and the success they'd had in the years since. There was no mention of Joss Whedon. I was kind of stunned. I had to wonder if someone was threatened that a person who got his start on her show had gone on, not just to be successful, but to so enormously outshine the star. Why on earth else would you ignore the one person who is clearly the most successful of everyone, in a segment about successful people who started on that show?

  149. KPmusmag

    I was of course disturbed by Roseanne's awful comments – and also a bit bewildered – in the show, her son is married to a black woman, she has a black grandaughter she adored, and a gender-fluid grandson she also adored. In the original run, there were black and gay characters realistically and sensitively portrayed. Since Roseanne is one of the creators of the new version and heavily influenced the content of the original, the racism really took me by surprise. I have not been a big fan, but I did appreciate the diversity of the characters on the show, old and new.

    Adored? That's not a verb I would use with Roseanne Barr or Rosanne Conner. Sure Roseanne Conner loved her grandchildren, but she doesn't "adore" anybody!

  150. Mark-P

    Adored? That's not a verb I would use with Roseanne Barr or Rosanne Conner. Sure Roseanne Conner loved her grandchildren, but she doesn't "adore" anybody!

    In general I agree with you, especially in the original, but I was touched by the way she interacted with the granddaughter in the slumber party scene (when the internet was out) and the hoops she jumped through so she could Skype with her mother. I thought that came pretty close to adoration, but perhaps I chose the wrong word.

  151. Jake Lipson

    Looks like potential payments are an issue after all:

    I wouldn't doubt that. The other three big stars probably had their contracts for the next season locked up weeks ago.

  152. I would be surprised if this would ever happen because the owners of 'Roseanne" and the actors would have to agree to participate not to mention the writers, but the story is out there

    From Huffington Post:

    ‘Roseanne’ Reboot Might Be Brought Back To Life By Former Trump Aide
    The CMO for Bond, a blockchain-backed streaming service, told The Daily Beast that it “always planned on reaching out to Roseanne.”
    [​IMG]
    By Jenna Amatulli

    Michael Caputo, former Trump campaign aide and chief marketing officer of startup streaming service Bond, says he’ll be reaching out to Roseanne Barr to poach her now-canceled show for his platform.

    Caputo told The Daily Beast on Wednesday that he and his Bond colleagues want “to reach out to Roseanne [Barr] immediately,” which he said they had planned to do at some point.

    “Now it’s sooner rather than later,” he said.

    If you’ve never heard of Bond, it’s not surprising ― if you search for it, you’ll get an overwhelming amount of links of where to watch James Bond films. It’s a service that, according to an interview on Wired, aims to connect video creators with audiences via crowdfunding and investing. On its website, Bond calls itself “the future of entertainment powered by Blockchain.”

    [​IMG]
    PAULA LOBO VIA GETTY IMAGES
    Roseanne Barr sparked widespread outrage after she sent out racist tweets about former Obama aide Valerie Jarrett.

    What does blockchain have anything to do with Roseanne Barr? Well, this is the world we live in now.

    Caputo has said he believes that blockchain is “the future of content.” He told The Daily Beast that Barr’s show is that prime content ― particularly because it can be used for luring “conservative-minded backers eager to tip the balance of political power in Hollywood,” according to the outlet.

    ABC announced Tuesday that it had canceled its reboot of “Roseanne” mere hours after Barr made racist comments on Twitter about former Obama White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

    “Roseanne’s Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show,” said Channing Dungey, president of ABC Entertainment, in a statement about the cancellation.

  153. That article assumes that there is a show to save.

    I doubt the other cast members, who have condemned her comments, would be willing to appear with her again. And yes, her name is in the title, but it's still a family sitcom, so she needs to have a family around her in it.

  154. And then there is this from EW.

    Roseanne update: ABC might put costars in new show
    ×
    LYNETTE RICE
    May 30, 2018 at 01:46 PM EDT
    Meet the … Bonners?

    There could be a scenario in the works where ABC salvages significant parts of Roseanne without having to say goodbye to some of the best actors on television (here’s looking at you, Laurie Metcalf and John Goodman). Though ABC made a swift decision Tuesday to cancel the successful reboot, EW has learned that ABC has not exactly washed its hands of the family comedy.

    Here’s the challenge, though: Roseanne was created by Roseanne Barr. The characters were conceived by her and Matt Williams. If the sitcom were to continue without the matriarch, the actress would still benefit financially. So a key insider informs EW that discussions will continue today on whether it makes sense to keep the other actors but potentially design a new series around them — ergo, the Bonners, or whatever you want to call Goodman, Metcalf, and the clan of misfits. Nothing has been decided, however, and various options are still being weighed.

    It’s not as if everyone scattered after Tuesday’s cancellation announcement. After ABC ordered a second season of Roseanne in March, EW confirmed that cast options were picked up for another 13 episodes. Carsey-Werner, which produces the sitcom for ABC, is still on the hook for paying those salaries. And since ABC ordered a new season, it bears its own financial brunt from the cancellation. So keeping some kind of show intact wouldn’t be the worst decision for ABC.

    Several of Roseanne’s best writers certainly aren’t going anywhere. In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, executive producer Dave Caplan noted that he, together with Roseanne EPs Bruce Helford and Bruce Rasmussen, are staying put with ABC. “[They] have a pilot project with Tom Werner for ABC, and we’ll continue working together. I know that Tom really regretted the fact that we had such a wonderful writing staff together — a real rare collection of talent — and I know he’d like to continue using it in some fashion if that were possible.”

    Even Barr herself lamented on Twitter about how her actions resulted in hundreds of people being out of work. (Read more of her response on Twitter here). Officially, ABC isn’t talking about any new chapter for the now-beleaguered series, but Disney-ABC Television Group president Ben Sherwood just sent out a statement to staff that said, in part, “we are so sorry the [cast and crew] were swept up in all of this and give thanks for their remarkable talents, wish them well, and hope to find another way to work together down the road.”
    image on Twitter
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Ben Sherwoood just sent this out to ABC staff re: Roseanne

    2:22 PM – May 30, 2018

    So what if ABC ultimately decides to make it all go away? “It’s not that much money,” observes a competing studio. “When you cancel a show, there are cancellation fees. And then there are costs of actually shutting down the production.”

    The real loss comes from the potential ad revenue — Kantar Media ballparked it at $60 million next season in the New York Times — and what a show like Roseanne could have done for ABC’s schedule, to say nothing of how Carsey-Werner continues to lose boatloads of cash after the Viacom networks and Hulu yanked the Roseanne reruns. “Think of the ripple effect that show would have had on other shows,” observes the studio exec. “Now ABC won’t be able to start Tuesday nights with a giant.”

    ABC declined to comment.

  155. Didn't the revival end with Roseanne about to undergo some sort of surgery the next day? (I saw the last minute or so of it when I turned ABC on for The Middle.)

    Theoretically, they could just kill her character off by saying she died in surgery.

    But if it's a spinoff, she would likely be due some sort of fee. If it's a new show with new characters, she would not have any claim to profits from it.

    In any case, even if this materializes, it won't be ready for fall, so it will be interesting to see what ABC does with its schedule in the meantim.

  156. That's really funny.

    Unfortunately, it's probably not as easy as that, since she would have a financial claim in a spinoff situation as a result of being a creator on the original show. I think it would have to be a totally new show for her to be decisively out. While I'm sure ABC would love to continue being in business with the rest of the cast and writers, I suspect any version of this that would financially benefit Barr is off the table. They don't want the negative press involved with paying her, even if she wasn't on camera.

    Hopefully they can figure something out to benefit everyone else.

    On another note…have you all seen this?

    https://www.tvinsider.com/693189/roseanne-cosby-show-tv-guide-cover-1989/

  157. I wonder if Carsey-Werner or ABC could actually sue Barr for damaging the creative property that was the show? Both are likely to take financial hits from the cancellation. It seems like they should be able to recoup that, especially if there were clauses in her contract that said she'd need to avoid controversial actions while the show was in production.

  158. Last comment ever on this subject.

    She's a rude, crude, ignorant bitch who pushed things to far. Loved the original show, reboot started well, then she opened her mouth. Normally a persons' attitude outside of their show doesn't bother me, but she just went way over the top.

    Financially won't hurt her much, read she's worth $80M, but a lot of people lost their jobs because of her. She's not coming back from this one. I hope the network is somehow able to sue her for the damage she's caused.

  159. I've got mixed feelings about all this business. On one hand, Roseanne said a pretty ugly thing and it is just that she face repercussions, but I'm not in love with the whole notion of instant career destruction over a bad statement (I know Roseanne has had a checkered history prior to this, but it's happened to other and maybe even for less). The press has also treated this as if she flat out murdered someone (and I'm not saying that to defend what she did).

    I'm not in the industry, but it seems somewhat hyperbolic, at least to me, that there were no other options. Sure the show would need to go on hiatus in the immediate term, but couldn't they have explored an option for sensitivity training or something like that? People do forgive eventually. He'll even Mel Gibson has more or less mended fences with Hollywood.

    Meanwhile Samantha Bee just took some minuscule heat for apparently calling Ivanka Trump a "Feckless C*nt" on her show. She apologized, but I doubt sponsors, writers and other talent are going to pull out or quit. Colbert and Kimmel made jokes of supposed gay releationships between Trump/Putin, Trump/Hannity. Jonah Hill once referred to a paparazzo as a f*g. All they got were some mild chidings for it.

  160. WillG

    I've got mixed feelings about all this business. On one hand, Roseanne said a pretty ugly thing and it is just that she face repercussions, but I'm not in love with the whole notion of instant career destruction over a bad statement (I know Roseanne has had a checkered history prior to this, but it's happened to other and maybe even for less). The press has also treated this as if she flat out murdered someone (and I'm not saying that to defend what she did).

    I'm not in the industry, but it seems somewhat hyperbolic, at least to me, that there were no other options. Sure the show would need to go on hiatus in the immediate term, but couldn't they have explored an option for sensitivity training or something like that? People do forgive eventually. He'll even Mel Gibson has more or less mended fences with Hollywood.

    Meanwhile Samantha Bee just took some minuscule heat for apparently calling Ivanka Trump a "Feckless C*nt" on her show. She apologized, but I doubt sponsors, writers and other talent are going to pull out or quit. Colbert and Kimmel made jokes of supposed gay releationships between Trump/Putin, Trump/Hannity. Jonah Hill once referred to a paparazzo as a f*g. All they got were some mild chidings for it.

    There is a lot of history with Roseanne, a lot of Twitter history and it's not the first time she called an African-American woman an ape.

  161. Robert Crawford

    There is a lot of history with Roseanne, a lot of Twitter history and it's not the first time she called an African-American woman an ape.

    I'd say Roseanne used up the proverbial three strikes long ago, plus her recent online behavior isn't at all indicative of repentance. Far from it.

  162. Robert Crawford

    There is a lot of history with Roseanne, a lot of Twitter history and it's not the first time she called an African-American woman an ape.

    Yeah, I get it, and I acknowledged it (but it does then beg the question of why ABC went forward with the revival in the first place). But there have been others who have lost their careers over tweets or unfortunate statements or mere accusations.

    It can be concerning because anyone could screw up one day (not that I would assume anyone here might say something racist, but that doesn’t preclude accidently saying something else that someone would deem inappropriate. And the “goal posts” of inappropriateness do seem to get moved rapidly in this day and age)

  163. There's a lot of history with Samantha Bee as well – this is hardly the first time she's expressed herself in such a crude fashion, or gone after individuals and groups that do not enjoy being mocked or stereotyped any more than African-Americans do. And tonight, Ms. Bee is being honored by the Television Academy for "inspiring social change."
    These are the kinds of social changes that have driven so many of us back to our DVD sets of shows from generations past.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/31308/television-academy-honor-samantha-bee-inspiring-emily-zanotti

  164. WillG

    Yeah, I get it, and I acknowledged it (but it does then beg the question of why ABC went forward with the revival in the first place). But there have been others who have lost their careers over tweets or unfortunate statements or mere accusations.

    It can be concerning because anyone could screw up one day (not that I would assume anyone here might say something racist, but that doesn’t preclude accidently saying something else that someone would deem inappropriate. And the “goal posts” of inappropriateness do seem to get moved rapidly in this day and age)

    Like I previously stated, ABC knew what she was all about when they green-lighted this reboot. So they deserved criticism in that regard and I give them little credit for cancelling it.

  165. Apparently, ABC put language in the contract warning of this (if you tend to believe the speculation and rumors), she still ran her cyber mouth, so she most likely knowingly put those hundreds of people out of work for a 280 character internet fix.

  166. I guess claiming to represent working-class Americans is easy when you make hundreds of thousands of dollars a week.

    And with this, another sitcom legacy crumbles like a stale cookie, and another Tiny Toon Adventures* reference just became dated:

    *The reason I can forgive Danny Cooksey for the later years of Diff'rent Strokes.

  167. DaveHof3

    There's a lot of history with Samantha Bee as well – this is hardly the first time she's expressed herself in such a crude fashion, or gone after individuals and groups that do not enjoy being mocked or stereotyped any more than African-Americans do. And tonight, Ms. Bee is being honored by the Television Academy for "inspiring social change."
    These are the kinds of social changes that have driven so many of us back to our DVD sets of shows from generations past.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/31308/television-academy-honor-samantha-bee-inspiring-emily-zanotti

    I'm not going to allow this thread to go down that Samantha Bee road too much because it will eventually turn political as Ivanka Trump is currently serving in her father's presidential administration. That's a rabbit hole that we can't allow on this forum due to our posting guidelines against discussing politics. However, I will say what Samantha Bee said was vulgar and inappropriate for a network show that isn't on HBO, Showtime or similar paid channels. I don't believe her use of that vulgar term is on equal footing as the racist things Roseanne has been saying for years. Furthermore, I think some kind of punishment should be in order for Samantha Bee and that TBS has some culpability in this situation because that show is taped and that vulgar term could have been edited out before airing to the general public.

    Again, we need to stay away from political talk in this thread. I would hate to start deleting posts and issuing disciplinary action due to political comments or even closing this thread down all-together.

    The Moderator Staff is very uneasy about this thread and I can't stress that enough to all of you.

  168. The Obsolete Man

    Apparently, ABC put language in the contract warning of this (if you tend to believe the speculation and rumors), she still ran her cyber mouth, so she most likely knowingly put those hundreds of people out of work for a 280 character internet fix.

    If anybody thinks that show's cancellation wasn't about protecting the Disney brand name, they're kidding themselves.

  169. Robert Crawford

    I don't believe her use of that vulgar term is on equal footing as the racist things Roseanne has been saying for years.

    Yeah, one may be seen as offensive and one is used to dehumanize a person. No one can seriously say that they're even remotely on the same level.

  170. TravisR

    Yeah, one may be seen as offensive and one is used to dehumanize a person. No one can seriously say that they're even remotely on the same level.

    One is used not only to dehumanize a person, but also an entire race. I remember when Patrick Ewing was playing for Georgetown and fans from other schools would compare him to an ape. I have other similar cases including a very personal one from my youth.

  171. 🙂

    WillG

    It can be concerning because anyone could screw up one day (not that I would assume anyone here might say something racist, but that doesn’t preclude accidently saying something else that someone would deem inappropriate. And the “goal posts” of inappropriateness do seem to get moved rapidly in this day and age)

    I agree with this. I'm just getting in on the conversation and I'm probably in the minority in this but it's very scary to me knowing that you can lose your livelihood over a comment regardless of whether it's harmful to someone. To me, that seems like a type of censoring. Now I'm not condoning what Roseanne said AT ALL. Yep, it was wrong and if it offended people then they shouldn't watch her show. I'm not perfect myself and I'm still working through some of my prejudices. I guarantee everyone on this board has some kind of prejudice. Who decides what is hate speech and the consequences of it? I hear celebrities mock my Christian faith all the time but I don't see them losing their jobs. Is it hate speech to call someone ugly or fat? I think the term "hate speech" gets thrown around way too easily. Why can a white person lose their job for calling a black person the "n" word but perfectly ok for a black person to call another black the "n" word. Why is it ok to call a black person who has conservative views "an Uncle Tom"? I'm trying very hard to make sure my wording isn't political due to the rules but due to the subject of this thread, I feel I needed to point these things out. Mods: If my comments cross any lines please delete it was NOT intentional. I'm looking for civil discourse here, no condescending or sarcastic remarks. I try to get along with everyone here.:)

  172. Bob_S.

    🙂

    I agree with this. I'm just getting in on the conversation and I'm probably in the minority in this but it's very scary to me knowing that you can lose your livelihood over a comment regardless of whether it's harmful to someone. To me, that seems like a type of censoring. Now I'm not condoning what Roseanne said AT ALL. Yep, it was wrong and if it offended people then they shouldn't watch her show. I'm not perfect myself and I'm still working through some of my prejudices. I guarantee everyone on this board has some kind of prejudice. Who decides what is hate speech and the consequences of it? I hear celebrities mock my Christian faith all the time but I don't see them losing their jobs. Is it hate speech to call someone ugly or fat? I think the term "hate speech" gets thrown around way too easily. Why can a white person lose their job for calling a black person the "n" word but perfectly ok for a black person to call another black the "n" word. Why is it ok to call a black person who has conservative views "an Uncle Tom"? I'm trying very hard to make sure my wording isn't political due to the rules but due to the subject of this thread, I feel I needed to point these things out. Mods: If my comments cross any lines please delete it was NOT intentional. I'm looking for civil discourse here, no condescending or sarcastic remarks. I try to get along with everyone here.:)

    As a black man, the use of the "N" word has always been unacceptable to me, no matter the race of the person saying it. I'm that way because of the way I was raised. It was an inappropriate term in my household growing up and the houses of my extended family. Today, my family and friends never, ever use that word so it's not as prevalent as you might think it is. That is my personal perspective as I can't answer those questions from a society point of view except I think it's wrong to use that word.

    We're not going to discuss religion as it along with politics is forbidden subject matters.

  173. TravisR

    Yeah, one may be seen as offensive and one is used to dehumanize a person. No one can seriously say that they're even remotely on the same level.

    By the way, Samantha Bee is just as dumb as Roseanne in using that vulgar term just after Roseanne got fired for her racist comments. Too many high profile people have a lack of self awareness as they do and say some dumb and stupid things. I believe a sense of arrogance and the lack of empathy is part of that problem.

  174. Robert Crawford

    By the way, Samantha Bee is just as dumb as Roseanne in using that vulgar term just after Roseanne got fired for her racist comments. Too many high profile people have a lack of self awareness as they do and say some dumb and stupid things. I believe a sense of arrogance and the lack of empathy is part of that problem.

    The timing was poor since she should have seen that people would try to equate the two and weaponize it against her but personally, I don't see any problem with what Samantha Bee said. People can certainly be offended by the language but I was not. And that's not a double standard because if Roseanne had used the c-word (as she has in the past), barely any one would have noticed and she'd still have a TV show.

  175. All I have to say is that I'm glad my viewing habits are stuck solidly in an era where Hollywood was full of class acts like James Stewart, and many of the less scrupulous stars at least seemed aware that their behavior was undesirable and tried to avert public attention from their shenanigans rather than trying to broadcast it.

  176. Robert Crawford

    Like I previously stated, ABC knew what she was all about when they green-lighted this reboot. So they deserved criticism in that regard and I give them little credit for cancelling it.

    Yup. When you dance with the devil, you are going to get burned.

  177. Robert Crawford

    By the way, Samantha Bee is just as dumb as Roseanne in using that vulgar term just after Roseanne got fired for her racist comments. Too many high profile people have a lack of self awareness as they do and say some dumb and stupid things. I believe a sense of arrogance and the lack of empathy is part of that problem.

    I don't know if it dumbness, but I agree there's a hubris behind it because I believe that they learn they can get away with a lot and in many cases it's true. I mentioned Colbert and Kimmel using implied homosexuality as a way to mock certain figures. They issue a standard corporate mandated apology and all is forgiven.

    TravisR

    And that's not a double standard because if Roseanne had used the c-word (as she has in the past), barely any one would have noticed and she'd still have a TV show.

    I suppose it depends on the recipient of such an attack. I can think of at least one person who if had been the recipient of that insult it would not have gone unnoticed and would have been tolerated.

  178. LeoA

    All I have to say is that I'm glad my viewing habits are stuck solidly in an era where Hollywood was full of class acts like James Stewart, and many of the less scrupulous stars at least seemed aware that their behavior was undesirable and tried to avert public attention from their shenanigans rather than trying to broadcast it.

    That's pretty much where I am, too. This Barr/Bee stuff just exemplifies why I long ago divorced myself from modern popular culture. It's just such a noxious sewer, which never fails to drag down my spirits. I haven't bothered with any of it in eons.

    The only irony I find is that in recent years I've encountered so many modern interviews and documentaries (like CNN's so-called "History of Comedy") in which there seems to be this grand consensus that 'true comedy' is virtually defined by elements of edginess, vulgarity, mean-spiritedness, envelope-pushing, and just blatant offensiveness. Like it's all a great virtue, and comedy doesn't exist without it. Just about every comedy 'expert' voice seemed to happily echo these thoughts. So I guess I find a bit darkly amusing when these same people suddenly find themselves burned by a third-rail. Eh, whatever. None of these things is remotely my idea of comedy. I'll just stick with the old masters, like Jack Benny, Abbott and Costello, WC Fields, Laurel and Hardy, Keaton, etc.

  179. Bob_S.

    🙂

    I agree with this. I'm just getting in on the conversation and I'm probably in the minority in this but it's very scary to me knowing that you can lose your livelihood over a comment regardless of whether it's harmful to someone. To me, that seems like a type of censoring. Now I'm not condoning what Roseanne said AT ALL. Yep, it was wrong and if it offended people then they shouldn't watch her show. I'm not perfect myself and I'm still working through some of my prejudices. I guarantee everyone on this board has some kind of prejudice. Who decides what is hate speech and the consequences of it? I hear celebrities mock my Christian faith all the time but I don't see them losing their jobs. Is it hate speech to call someone ugly or fat? I think the term "hate speech" gets thrown around way too easily. Why can a white person lose their job for calling a black person the "n" word but perfectly ok for a black person to call another black the "n" word. Why is it ok to call a black person who has conservative views "an Uncle Tom"? I'm trying very hard to make sure my wording isn't political due to the rules but due to the subject of this thread, I feel I needed to point these things out. Mods: If my comments cross any lines please delete it was NOT intentional. I'm looking for civil discourse here, no condescending or sarcastic remarks. I try to get along with everyone here.:)

    Robert Crawford

    As a black man, the use of the "N" word has always been unacceptable to me, no matter the race of the person saying it. I'm that way because of the way I was raised. It was an inappropriate term in my household growing up and the houses of my extended family. Today, my family and friends never, ever use that word so it's not as prevalent as you might think it is. That is my personal perspective as I can't answer those questions from a society point of view except I think it's wrong to use that word.

    We're not going to discuss religion as it along with politics is forbidden subject matters.

    We have room, I believe, to include in this discussion how religion has been publicly abused by ignorant celebrities. As long as we clearly avoid the discussion of the religious beliefs themselves and only discuss how religion was specifically the subject of the discussion on a particular program.

    4. No politics or religion. We do not permit the discussion of politics or religion at HTF. However, there is a narrow exception to this rule. If the subject matter of a movie or television show includes politics and/or religion, then they may be discussed insofar as they pertain to that specific movie or television show. We stress, however, that such discussions are carefully monitored and will be moderated if it appears that any participant is using this narrow exception to introduce a broader political or religious discussion than is warranted by the movie or television show under discussion. Also, anyone who has not seen a particular movie or television show is disqualified from discussing its political and/or religious content under this rule. Note: Posts by HTF staff including reviewers may on occasion be given wider discretion by site management.

    On another ABC television show, The View, Joy Behar mocked those of Christian faith by indicating that those who adhere to that faith suffer from mental illness. Much like Roseanne's racist slur against Valerie Jarrett and the black community, Behar made an equally vulgar slur against Mike Pence and the Christian community (of which I am a member).

    ABC–quickly–cancelled Roseanne (in effect, ending their relationship with the controversial star). Since Behar's slur back in February, ABC has done nothing–zero–in terms of their broadcast of The View or its relationship with Behar.

    Often, these scenarios which play out (celebrities doing/saying dumb things) are apple/oranges situations. But the parallels between the Behar/Barr events are real. One difference is that Behar actually committed her offense on ABC's airwaves.

    After the Behar slur, I waited impatiently for the network to take some kind of public action or to issue some kind of public statement about what happened. None of that ever occurred. it was just allowed to be. Disney/ABC CEO Bob Iger was even directly asked about the incident at a shareholder's meeting and stumbled his way through an evasive answer. The best he could muster was that he "took exception" to what she said.

    Both Barr and Behar apologized for their transgressions. Barr within hours. Behar a full month later (only after it became apparent that the controversy was not going to subside).

    All this prompted my earlier posts in this thread about how I cannot believe ABC's firing of Barr had anything to do with their suits following some sort of moral compass. For there are other indicators which make it clear, to me, that they are highly selective in which slights they believe are significant and which they don't. The media has pinpointed a number of other areas in which ABC has (and still is) making some questionable judgments about whom they are deciding to employ. In my opinion, their action had nothing to do with the slur against black men and women.

    So as to Bob's question about who decides the consequences of "hate speech," it is us. We cannot tell corporate America who they fire and who they don't. But we sure as hell can let them know what we think of them and their decisions…and, more importantly, we can decide not to patronize their programming if we think they are being insensitive to our existence. And if an individual celebrity offends us significantly enough, we can just avoid them as best we can.

    Celebrities are idiots (much like the rest of us). Their sense of self-importance though leads them to think their viewpoints are so important they need to share them with the world. Yet the more entitled they are, it seems the more skewed their viewpoints. And the more we allow celebrities, political pundits and the media to polarize us and try to define us, the worse this culture is going to get. The best thing, probably, we could do is ignore them all–especially if they are going to be irresponsible.

    We need to be grounded in who we are, what we believe and secure in the sense that we care for each other as people. And those people who buy ink by the barrel and who control the airwaves need to live by those same rules or else we are in big trouble.

    [​IMG]

  180. Mike Frezon

    Celebrities are idiots (much like the rest of us). Their sense of self-importance though leads them to think their viewpoints are so important they need to share them with the world.

    I don't think celebrities' sense of self-importance is particularly greater than many other people today. Celebrities just have more chances to espouse their viewpoints and if given the same opportunity to be heard, many 'regular' people would do the same thing as the celebrities they deride. I mean I could take to Twitter and zing people left and right on all kinds of topics but no one would care because I'm just some dope. However, the same exact feed run by a celebrity would be huge. I guess the best way to say it is that celebrities have every right to put their opinion out there just like you or me but the problem is when the general public just takes their thoughts as fact without bothering to figure out if they're right.

  181. Robert Crawford

    If anybody thinks that show's cancellation wasn't about protecting the Disney brand name, they're kidding themselves.

    The last two seasons of the original were after the Disney buyout, and that's when they really went downhill.

    And then there's the matter of Home on the Range. We could have had a Dolly Parton movie instead.

    Despite the historical connections between the two (ABC putting up Disneyland completion funds in the exchange for the rights to Walt's show and Mickey Mouse Club), I'm still not convinced ABC and Disney are a good mix. Most of the studio's best work was done before the buyout, and they still managed what might be the greatest corporate comeback in Hollywood history without it. They already had a channel of their own, and even two of the non-cable TV shows that were most integral to its revival, The Golden Girls and, to a somewhat lesser extent, its spinoff Empty Nest, were on NBC. Walt's Sunday night show spent most of its run there.

    They largely sacrificed their family-friendly image out of despair for the company's future after a decade or so of bad decisions without Walt around all started to add up. And now they're paying for it bigly.

  182. I think there's a difference between disparaging someones race vs. personal beliefs/opinions.

    Opinions/beliefs can be variable and are formed based on upbringing and education with people landing all over the spectrum of any issue and expressing themselves accordingly. It should be civil debate, but it's often not (on both sides). Race is genetically determined at birth and is inescapable and unchangeable.

  183. Mike Frezon

    Is one right and one wrong? Does the circumstances you laid out make one more acceptable?

    I don't see anything inherently wrong in expressing a counter-point to an issue on which there are multiple sides and opinions. It is possible to chose the wrong words, perhaps, which can change a civil counter-point into an attack. As I mentioned, this often occurs on both sides of every issue, especially in modern times.

    It's always wrong to attack or disparage a person based on race.

  184. TravisR

    I don't think celebrities' sense of self-importance is particularly greater than many other people today. Celebrities just have more chances to espouse their viewpoints and if given the same opportunity to be heard, many 'regular' people would do the same thing as the celebrities they deride. I mean I could take to Twitter and zing people left and right on all kinds of topics but no one would care because I'm just some dope. However, the same exact feed run by a celebrity would be huge. I guess the best way to say it is that celebrities have every right to put their opinion out there just like you or me but the problem is when the general public just takes their thoughts as fact without bothering to figure out if they're right.

    You ever meet any celebrities, Travis? 😀 The stereotyped sense that they are rude to common folk has been created for a reason. They demand specific treatment because they are important (in their own minds).

    We're not saying anything all too different from each other. After all, if you had quoted my next couple of sentences in the part of the graf you quoted of mine:

    And the more we allow celebrities, political pundits and the media to polarize us and try to define us, the worse this culture is going to get. The best thing, probably, we could do is ignore them all–especially if they are going to be irresponsible.

  185. Malcolm R

    I think there's a difference between disparaging someones race vs. personal beliefs/opinions.

    Insults, and desparaging remarks can can be equally damaging to both.

    For someone to attack a religion in which one lives their life accordingly can hurt bad, and cut deep. Just as a racial slur can do the same.
    Both are unacceptable, and equally bad.

  186. Malcolm R

    I don't see anything inherently wrong in expressing a counter-point to an issue on which there are multiple sides and opinions. It is possible to chose the wrong words, perhaps, which can change a civil counter-point into an attack. As I mentioned, this often occurs on both sides of every issue, especially in modern times.

    It's always wrong to attack or disparage a person based on race.

    There is a difference between expressing a counter-point to an issue…and disparaging someone.

    I believe it is also always wrong to attack or disparage a person based on their religious beliefs.

  187. Mike Frezon has already laid out the Barr/Behar comparison better than I could have in his eloquent post. In also assessing the reaction to Samantha Bee's recent comments, it's almost impossible not to draw two specific conclusions:

    1. The target of the offensive speech is more of a factor in how the incident will be handled than the speech itself.
    2. The perpetrator of the offensive speech is also more of a factor in how the incident will be handled than the speech itself.

  188. TravisR

    I don't think celebrities' sense of self-importance is particularly greater than many other people today. Celebrities just have more chances to espouse their viewpoints and if given the same opportunity to be heard, many 'regular' people would do the same thing as the celebrities they deride. I mean I could take to Twitter and zing people left and right on all kinds of topics but no one would care because I'm just some dope. However, the same exact feed run by a celebrity would be huge. I guess the best way to say it is that celebrities have every right to put their opinion out there just like you or me but the problem is when the general public just takes their thoughts as fact without bothering to figure out if they're right.

    Sure celebs have to right to their opinion, but some of them seem to anoint themselves as authorities and not someone just offering an opinion. Bee seems like a good example. Granted I never watched her show, but my impression of her from clips I've seen and things I've read is that she's the "if you don't think like me, you're a piece of shit" type. This Ivanka incident and her apparent penchant for using profanity as a crutch to punctuate her points seems to bear that out. Now I don't know if it's fair to say that because of their public prominence celebs have a greater responsibility when it comes to opinion, but I imagine that if I were a celebrity I'd remember that people from most walks of life see movies, watch tv, buy records etc.

  189. Mike Frezon

    There is a difference between expressing a counter-point to an issue…and disparaging someone.

    I believe it is also always wrong to attack or disparage a person based on their religious beliefs.

    Just to play Devil’s Advocate, what if those beliefs run counter to the accepted norm. For example, what if overt racism was part and parcel of someone’s religion?

    It’s a fine line

  190. Before the first episode aired, I knew the character Rosanne was going to be a T supporter. I found the show was about regular people having trouble getting by. It addressed the opioid crisis, changing sexual mores, pregnancy for profit. Rosanne was supportive of you sexually unsure grandchild, I sympathized with her not liking her daughter getting pregnant for profit. I didn’t condem her for having a pill problem. They didn’t have health insurance, not by choice, and they needed it.

    Jeez, this was a good show addressing a lot of topical issues. Too bad Rosanne, the actor, had to be such a bigot and jerk.

  191. I think there are times when disparaging someone for their personal belief’s or opinions is appropriate. For instance, those clowns marching in the Tiki Torch parade, chanting “Jews will not replace us” and “Blood and sand.” You know, the ones with “good people on both sides”. I think the people carrying the torches (tiki) and chanting are despicable people and there are no good people on their side.

    If a person is racist based on religion or not, they are despicable.

  192. Hanson

    The standard is whether you are punching up or punching down. Look at all of these incidents through that prism and there is a consistency to the results.

    I'm not sure that tracks with the anti-Semitic tweets of Joy Reid or Trevor Noah.
    Look, I get that there's no hard-and-fast rule in place for what a network (or any employer) should do when a high-profile employee says or tweets something like this. "Zero tolerance" policies sound good in theory but often produce poor results. But trying to assess which people or groups are entitled to more leeway on intolerant statements – either giving or receiving – has obviously not worked either.

    Most people would say it's a good thing that we're not as tolerant of such statements as we used to be. But we are not as forgiving either when people err and apologize. Either contrition is enough or it is not.

  193. Mike Frezon

    We have room, I believe, to include in this discussion how religion has been publicly abused by ignorant celebrities. As long as we clearly avoid the discussion of the religious beliefs themselves and only discuss how religion was specifically the subject of the discussion on a particular program.

    On another ABC television show, The View, Joy Behar mocked those of Christian faith by indicating that those who adhere to that faith suffer from mental illness.

    I urge people to google "The View" segment and make up your own mind as I watched that segment four times over the last day or so and I don't agree with Mike's conclusion that she was mocking the entire Christian faith.

    That's all I'll say as I'm bowing out of this discussion as an active participant because I'm afraid it's going down a slippery slope because you can't talk about that segment without talking about religion.

  194. Mike Frezon

    You ever meet any celebrities, Travis? 😀 The stereotyped sense that they are rude to common folk has been created for a reason. They demand specific treatment because they are important (in their own minds).

    I think I'm more pessimistic than you because I think regular people would act like that too. 🙂 The entitlement that I see from some regular jerk in line at Target is staggering to me so if they act like that as 'regular' people, I can only imagine that they'd be the stereotypical celebrity if you gave them the opportunity.

    To be fair, I'm sure that many celebrities don't act or expect special treatment so I'm not saying that every celebrity is a creep.

    We're not saying anything all too different from each other. After all, if you had quoted my next couple of sentences in the part of the graf you quoted of mine:

    Yeah, this isn't me saying "You're completely wrong and I'm going to tell you why!!!!" I'm just sticking up for the poor downtrodden millionaire celebrities. :laugh:

  195. Jake Lipson

    Darlene?

    http://tvline.com/2018/06/01/roseanne-spinoff-darlene-sara-gilbert-abc-renewed/

    If nothing else, the first episode will probably blow this season's Roseanne ratings out of the water for curiosity and trainwreck factor.

    Look at how high Two and a Half Men's ratings shot the beginning of the season after Charlie Sheen flamed out.

    Plus, if Season (1)1 settles at half of what S10 was doing, that would put it at a 1.2… which is standard ABC Sitcom territory.

  196. Because Roseanne is a creator on her show, it would follow that she would be due a cut of the profits on a spinoff. So it will be interesting to see if they can go forward and figure out a way to cut her out.

  197. Jake Lipson

    Because Roseanne is a creator on her show, it would follow that she would be due a cut of the profits on a spinoff. So it will be interesting to see if they can go forward and figure out a way to cut her out.

    Is she the creator of the characters, or just the Roseanne character?

    Because Matt Williams is listed as creator of the show, which was part of the reason she got him fired by episode 13.

    However, the end credits say "based on a character created by Roseanne". A Character. So does that leave everyone else in the clear to use as long as Roseanne is dead and gone and forgotten, or what?

  198. ^ A great idea, if it's not just "Roseanne" minus Roseanne. Have Darlene get a job that requires her and and her two kids relocate to a new city. Make it near a military base so that D.J. and his daughter can relocate there for season two.

  199. Johnny Angell

    Some times a spinoff works (Maude) and sometimes not (After Mash-I think that’s the name). You never know. My guess is Darlene can’t carry a show.

    She'll be able to carry it further than either of the Beckys.

    EDIT: And… she just lost Whoopi. Is there a bridge that remains unburned yet?

  200. All in the Family supplied some GREAT spinoffs: Maude, The Jeffersons and Good Times (from Maude). But there was also Gloria. The best spinoffs IMHO are the ones that remove themselves from the original rather than just try to rework it.

  201. Robert Crawford

    I urge people to google "The View" segment and make up your own mind as I watched that segment four times over the last day or so and I don't agree with Mike's conclusion that she was mocking the entire Christian faith.

    That's all I'll say as I'm bowing out of this discussion as an active participant because I'm afraid it's going down a slippery slope because you can't talk about that segment without talking about religion.

    I’m not a fan of Behar or “The View,” but I agree with you 100%. She was not mocking the entire Christian faith. And it was in no way on the order of what Barr or Bee said. People may disagree with what she said but she was not obscene or vulgar in how she said it, nor was she going for a laugh.

  202. EricSchulz

    All in the Family supplied some GREAT spinoffs: Maude, The Jeffersons and Good Times (from Maude). But there was also Gloria. The best spinoffs IMHO are the ones that remove themselves from the original rather than just try to rework it.


    Gloria
    was spun-off from Archie Bunker's Place a year before they both went down together despite both being still Top 30-rated shows. The others struck while the iron was still hot. That was a situation where everyone was ready to move on except CBS and Carroll O'Connor; not so much damage control as age-related attrition. By that time, Norman Lear's direct role was reduced to a corporate one at most, the new shows that actually had his name on them flopped, and the company's focus had moved onto shows for children and teenagers.

    This is unprecedented. This isn't even like the Bill Cosby rape trial where that was a long time coming, and those in the know already knew there was a dissonance between his sitcom avatar Dr. Cliff Huxtable and the real deal. Even Anita Bryant's career implosion after leading the opposition to a gay rights bill in Miami isn't really the same because outside her recordings, her TV career consisted of mainly orange juice commercials and guesting on Bob Hope specials, and also because this show's stance there was the opposite of hers. When else has a successful scripted TV show been taken off the air because of a star's public statement like that?

  203. Michael Moore who has apparently has known Roseanne for 25 years has posted about the situation. I edited to removed most Trump references.

    "I have known Roseanne Barr for over 25 years. I’ve known her as Roseanne Barr, Roseanne Arnold, just “Roseanne”, then back to Roseanne Barr. I’ve spent time in her home, criss-crossed the country with her to help remove George W. Bush from the White House, appeared on her shows, been there for her when she needed something, and connected her with one of my producers who did an insightful, one-of-a-kind documentary into the genius and the tragedy that is Roseanne Barr.

    On Tuesday Roseanne posted hateful, slanderous tweets directed at four people: George Soros, Valerie Jarrett, Chelsea Clinton and me. A few hours later, she was fired by ABC.

    For the past few years, Roseanne has been posting the craziest stuff on Twitter, like claiming Hillary was part of a child sex abuse ring being run out of a DC pizza place. She’s claimed that the Clintons have murdered people. And anyone who criticizes Benjamin Netanyahu is a “nazi.”

    Roseanne seems to be suffering from some sort of madness. It’s more than just saying she’s a racist. She operates in the same sewer of lies, conspiracy theories and bigotry that’s been rising in America for years Edited . Totally nuts.

    Edited

    Roseanne, on the other hand, is a person who long ago broke through and brought an authentic voice of working women and men to television via one of the greatest TV series of all time. It was groundbreaking because the TV industry had historically either ignored, ridiculed or patronized those of us who grew up in the working class. Roseanne changed that.

    But she is also a damaged soul. Most people don’t know that she has suffered her entire life from a massive head injury she received during a serious car accident when she was a child. Her brain injuries were immense and she spent months in the hospital struggling to recover.

    I also have no idea what it was like to grow up, as she did, as a Jewish girl in Salt Lake City. Not a tolerant state, to be sure. She told me how her parents, who owned an apartment building, were asked by the U.S. government after World War II if they would be willing to house Holocaust survivors who had come to the U.S. as refugees. Her parents took dozens in, and Roseanne’s childhood was spent with these survivors as her “family.” “The stories they told me,” she said, “were filled with unimaginable horror. I’ve always wondered what effect that had on me as a little girl.”

    Now, sadly, for the past few years, Roseanne has been in a downward spiral, ranting like crazy on Twitter, spreading conspiracy theories, attacking the people she used to love, supporting Trump, and being just an outright hateful and racist person. It has been a difficult decline to witness. She has repeatedly attacked me, and on Tuesday, after calling George Soros a “Nazi” (he’s a Jew and a Holocaust survivor), Valerie Jarrett an offspring “of the Muslim Brotherhood and Planet of the Apes,” and saying that Chelsea was “married to” a Nazi relative of George Soros, she then retweeted a disgusting new word for me because I have spoken out against the Netanyahu government and its killing of Palestinians — “#JewHater“. Nonstop insanity and sickness.

    I guess there might be 20 million Americans (out of 320 million) who probably agree with her. She has thrown down with the lowest of the low, and who knows if she’ll ever recover from this descent into her own personal hell.

    To close, I want to say just how great the new Roseanne show was. It was funny but brutal to watch because it showed how our system of greed has hurt millions of families like the Connors of Illinois. On the final episode last week, Roseanne was addicted to opioids because she couldn’t afford the knee surgery she needed, so she suffered along in agonizing pain. Dan, her husband, in order to raise money for her surgery, decided to take a non-union job — and Roseanne berates him for doing so and letting his union brothers and sisters down. There are a couple quick knocks on Trump, making it clear that the real Roseanne was not writing or running this show. For the past 9 weeks, the new Roseanne show has shined a powerful and necessary light on what it means to be working class in 2018. Her blended family on this new series was white and black and LGBTQ, and her generous neighbors next door were Muslims who forced her to confront her own bigotry.

    If only her art could have helped her in her real life.

    (Also, let me say this: There’s no reason the show has to go just because she’s gone. Over the years, TV has found ways to bring Bobby Ewing back from the dead on “Dallas”, forced us to accept the two Darrins on “Bewitched”, and found ways for hit shows to survive when their stars bolted after a year or two [David Caruso on “NYPD Blue”, Pernell Roberts on “Bonanza”]. The smart people who were writing this Roseanne series can surely find a way to let the non-bigoted portion of the America’s working class [which I can tell you is the VAST majority] have their voice heard on network television. Why should it be silenced by one lost soul?)

  204. I think that statement minus the deleted trump stuff (deleted for good reason) is very well spoken.

    There is clearly something going on with her mentally, well clear to me. Something seems to be wrong whether it’s that njury or just actually becoming senile as she grows older.

    I feel bad for all the people that lost a job because of this but I feel sad that Roseanne Barr has become this person that she has appeared as the last few years or so.

  205. TonyD

    I think that statement minus the deleted trump stuff (deleted for good reason) is very well spoken.

    There is clearly something going on with her mentally, well clear to me. Something seems to be wrong whether it’s that njury or just actually becoming senile as she grows older.

    I feel bad for all the people that lost a job because of this but I feel sad that Roseanne Barr has become this person that she has appeared as the last few years or so.

    Yeah, I'm not a doctor (surprise) but she's been saying some awful and really weird stuff for years now. If a person with a high profile doesn't realize that what she Tweeted would result in serious consequences, it's not simply racism- it seems like mental illness. If it is, I hope this is a wake up call for her or her family to get her some help.

  206. Robert Crawford

    I urge people to google "The View" segment and make up your own mind as I watched that segment four times over the last day or so and I don't agree with Mike's conclusion that she was mocking the entire Christian faith.

    That's all I'll say as I'm bowing out of this discussion as an active participant because I'm afraid it's going down a slippery slope because you can't talk about that segment without talking about religion.

    Huh. I wasn't aware this was even an open question.

    I guess I should feel good when people consider me mentally ill because of my religious beliefs.

    JohnMor

    I’m not a fan of Behar or “The View,” but I agree with you 100%. She was not mocking the entire Christian faith. And it was in no way on the order of what Barr or Bee said. People may disagree with what she said but she was not obscene or vulgar in how she said it, nor was she going for a laugh.

    Yup. I disagree with what she said. It was repugnant.

    And nope. Behar wasn't obscene or vulgar. But neither was Barr.

    And, I agree that Behar wasn't going for a laugh. Her only intent was to make the point that she's got a problem that Christians say that they talk to God and that God answers them. In her opinion, that's mental illness. She didn't smile when she said it, she wasn't looking for a laugh. She plainly stated there was something wrong with Pence's ritual of starting each day looking for direction from God. She then piled on by further mocking Pence for his self-imposed rule of not dining alone with women who are not his wife–a rule that many Christians follow.

    I'm really not sure why I need to defend my position that Christians were disparaged by Behar's remarks. To me, it's not something about which there can even be a question. I was offended to my very core.

    Pence was offended:

    “When I heard that ABC had a program that likened my Christianity to mental illness, I just couldn’t be silent. My Christian faith is probably the most important thing in my life. To have ABC have a forum that spoke in such demeaning terms, I think it’s evidence of how out of touch some in the mainstream media are with the faith and values of the American people.”

    And then there is the 25-thousand people who called ABC in the days immediately following the broadcast to complain about her remarks. They were offended, too.

    The fact that there are people who even question whether Christians should be offended by what Behar said is amazing to me.

    She offended people–many, many people. Just like Roseanne did. And to stay true to my only point for bringing all this up…ABC should have taken some kind of action against Behar and/or The View.

  207. Mike Frezon

    self-imposed rule of not dining alone with women who are not his wife–a rule that many Christians follow.

    I’ve never heard of that before.

    I don’t know if I even comprehend it.
    Almost all of my close friends are woman whom I’ve been out with to dinner and movies and at their house. Many many times without my wife.

    Same with her.

    I’m beside myself right now just trying to understand the reasoning for that.

  208. Mike Frezon

    She then piled on by further mocking Pence for his self-imposed rule of not dining alone with women who are not his wife–a rule that many Christians follow.

    We're far afield of "Roseanne" at this point, and we're getting into choppy waters. I haven't seen the video of Behar so I can't weigh in on that, but I do think it's a matter of public interest/debate when an elected public official makes himself more available to one gender than the other. Much governing has been done at the dinner table.

  209. My initial thoughts were along the lines of Bob Iger's, Roseannes tweet was abbhorent and repugnant. I thought it was perfectly fine to cancel the show and I wasn't too concerned about the cast and crew. How many people work on pilots that never get picked up. Such is the life of a crew member, on to the next gig.

    I also agree with many that there is a tremendous double standard. Samantha Bee merely apologized for using a profanity, not the actual sentiment behind it. And then pretty much walked back her apology with her statements today. And several people here and in the media have pointed out Joy Behar, Joy Reid, Keith Olbermann are all still employed.

    But here's the deal, the double standard doesn't bother me, because I don't want to spend my time looking to be offended, nor listening to everyone complain because they were offended. And I certainly don't want programming dictated by the mob, or to have people not voice a relevant opinion for fear of backlash. What happens when a show I'm perfectly okay with is cancelled because someone else is offended?

    Let the free market work. As offended as I was by Miss Bee, her crowd cheered. There is an audience for her, even though this is not her first time stepping in it. Truthfully though I have never watched a minute of her show and have no plans to do so. And if enough people feel likewise it will go away.

    I also have never watched the view, but I'm constantly inundated with audio and video sound bites. If that show went away talk radio wouldn't know what to do.

  210. Our Friend the internet. No mention of religion here.

    Hearing voices
    It is estimated that between 5% and 28% of the general population hears voices that other people do not.1

    Hearing voices is an auditory hallucination that may or may not be associated with a mental health problem. It is the most common type of hallucination in people with psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia.2 However, a large number of otherwise healthy individuals have also reported hearing voices.

    Symptoms
    It is difficult to describe what it is like to hear voices, particularly if you’ve never heard voices yourself. Persons have described them as the voice of someone standing right next to them, or as voices that are thought-like. Some persons have reported experiencing a combination of both.3 The voices heard can be critical, complementary or neutral. They may give you commands that are potentially harmful. They may even engage you in conversation.4

    You may think you have never experienced this, but are you sure? You may have had the experience of hearing someone call your name only to find that there is no one there. Indeed, research shows that, especially for recently bereaved people, it is not uncommon to hear the voice of someone who isn’t actually there speaking to you, or who may even be dead.

    It's also common for people to hear voices as if they are thoughts entering their mind from somewhere outside themselves. This is not the same as a suddenly inspired idea, which people usually recognise as coming from themselves. These thoughts are not their own and would seem to come from outside their own consciousness..

    A good example of this is the experience of recalling a rhyme or tune, which you find yourself repeating unconsciously under your breath and which keeps going through your head again and again. You can even find yourself humming it. You never took a decision to start thinking of it and it’s difficult to stop thinking about it.

    The difference between the tune in your head and a 'voice thought' that appears as words in your mind is that the voice may go on to speak coherently to you and even engage you in conversation. You yourself are not responsible for it and you have no idea what this voice is going to say next.

    For some voice hearers, the voices might be present all day and prevent them from doing things in their daily lives, while others may find ways of living with these voices. People who hear voices may not feel able to talk about them and may become isolated and withdrawn as a result.

    Prevalence
    Most people have had at least one experience of hearing a voice when there was no one around them. One study found that only around 25% of persons who hear voices also have a psychotic disorder.5 While children below the age of 12 have reported hearing voices, in 75% of cases, the voices stopped by the age of 13.6 Where the voices persist through to adolescence and adulthood, it usually is the case that there is an underlying mental health issue.

    Causes
    Until recently voices were regarded as a symptom of a mental illness and not talked about because of fear of stigma. Hearing voices are still considered by psychiatry as an auditory hallucination and as a symptom of conditions such as schizophrenic disorders, manic depression and psychosis.

    Traumatic life experiences (e.g. sexual abuse , neglect, loss of a parent) are considered to be among the most significant triggers of auditory hallucinations, particularly among children. As many as 70% of participants in one study reported that hearing voices started following a traumatic or significant emotional event.7

    Treatments
    Conventional method of treatment uses major tranquillisers. These do not get rid of the voices. In the past mental health professionals were taught not to let voice hearers talk about their voices as this was thought to be colluding with the person’s delusions and not helpful. Most often professionals sought to distract the voice hearer from their voices.

    Research has shown that many people hear voices, and some cope well with their voices, without psychiatric intervention. It has also been found that many people who hear voices regard them as a positive part of their lives.8 There are several other avenues that can help:

    Talk to other voice hearers – this gives you the opportunity to share experiences and to learn from one another. You can join or set up a self-help groups, such as those established by the Hearing Voices Network throughout the UK.
    Voice hearers say it is important to discuss their voices. This helps you learn to recognise their games and tricks, as well as their good aspects, and to identify patterns that are specific to given situations. This can help you to be better prepared for future onset of voices. Voice hearers may think they are alone in hearing voices. This can lead to feelings of shame or the fear of going mad. Anxiety often leads to the avoidance of situations that might trigger the voices, stopping people leading a full and rewarding life. Anxiety severely restricts freedom of movement, and strategies of avoidance often seem to exacerbate the problem.
    Voice hearers seek explanations to account for their voices. Understanding where the voices come from and why, and what triggers them can be helpful in developing a coping strategy. Unless some meaning is attributed to the voices, it is difficult to establish a relationship with them in order to feel more in control. Approaches that discourage voice hearers from seeking mastery of the voices tend to yield the least positive results.
    In the process of developing your own point of view and taking responsibility for yourself, the essential first step is acceptance of the voices as belonging to you. This is one of the most important and difficult steps to take.
    Voices can express what the voice hearers are feeling or thinking – for instance, aggression or fear about an event or relationship. It is the feelings that are important here, not the voices. When the voices express such views, it can be valuable to discuss the messages with someone you trust.
    When you hear voices that are malicious it is difficult to accept the existence of a positive, helpful dimension to the experience. Contact with other voice hearers can lead to the discovery that positive voices exist, and the realisation that these can be detected, as a result of acceptance of your negative feelings. Imposing a structure on the relationship with the voices helps minimise feelings of powerlessness. It is valuable to see that you can set your own limits and restrain the voices from excessive intrusion on your life.
    Sharing experiences enables voice hearers to get to know what medicines others are using, how useful these are, and what their side effects may be. It is important, for example, to know whether a particular medicine is helpful in reducing the hearing of voices or easing anxiety and confusion.
    Sharing knowledge about voices with families and friends can be helpful. If family and friends can accept the voices they can be more supportive. This can make voice hearers’ lives easier, improving their confidence in social situations.
    Voice hearers who have learned to adjust to their experiences report that the process has contributed to their personal growth. Personal growth can be defined as recognising what you need in order to live a fulfilled life, and knowing how to achieve these ends.
    Communicating about voices has its disadvantages. Voice hearers can feel very vulnerable; some voice hearers find great difficulty in opening up about their experiences, although it can be easier with other voice hearers. Another drawback is that the voices may become temporarily more acute when you start talking about them. All in all, though, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
    Finally, it is most important to recognise the wide variety of individual situations and circumstances. The best advice is to try to increase the voice hearer’s influence over their voices, rather than intensify their powerlessness.
    Practical advice for family, friends and mental health workers
    To assist voice hearers, mental health professionals need to find out which frames of reference and coping strategies seem to be the most useful to the voice hearer. By doing so voice hearers can be supported more effectively in their attempts to deal with their experiences. Self-determination and self-knowledge are the key.

    Accept the voice hearer’s experience of the voices. The voices are often felt as more intense and real than sensory perceptions.
    Understand the different languages used by the voice hearer to describe and account for their experiences, as well as the language spoken by the voices themselves. There is often a world of symbols and feelings involved.
    Help the individual to communicate with the voices. This may involve differentiating between good and bad voices and accepting the voice hearer’s own negative emotions. This acceptance may make a crucial contribution to the promotion of self-esteem.
    Encourage the voice hearer to meet other people with similar experiences and to read about hearing voices, in order to help overcome isolation and taboo.
    When to seek help
    If you are hearing voices and they are causing concern, talk with your GP who will refer you to a psychiatrist if necessary.

  211. sleroi

    Samantha Bee merely apologized for using a profanity, not the actual sentiment behind it.

    But why should she apologize for the sentiment behind it? It was a criticism based on her opinion of someone’s character or lack thereof based on things that person had said and done or not said and not done. It wasn’t a condemnation based on something intrinsic and uncontrollable like a person’s race or birthplace or physical handicap. Nor was it a blanket condemnation like “All conservatives/Republicans are…” or “All liberals/Democrats are…” or “All Muslims are…” That’s not a double standard; that’s a valid difference between having an informed opinion and just making a hateful remark.

    I’ve never watched Bee’s show so I don’t know if she also engages in making hateful remarks. I’m simply referring to the clip I saw of the comments in question.

  212. Mike Frezon

    And then there is the 25-thousand people who called ABC in the days immediately following the broadcast to complain about her remarks. They were offended, too.

    The fact that there are people who even question whether Christians should be offended by what Behar said is amazing to me.

    She offended people–many, many people. Just like Roseanne did. And to stay true to my only point for bringing all this up…ABC should have taken some kind of action against Behar and/or The View.

    What if the situation were reversed and Behar said atheists were mentally ill? Would you have been offended on their behalf. Atheists take a lot of verbal abuse from christians but I never hear anyone asking for the offender to be punished. Seems like a double standard to me.

    sleroi

    But here's the deal, the double standard doesn't bother me, because I don't want to spend my time looking to be offended, nor listening to everyone complain because they were offended. And I certainly don't want programming dictated by the mob, or to have people not voice a relevant opinion for fear of backlash. What happens when a show I'm perfectly okay with is cancelled because someone else is offended?

    I agree with you at least part of the way. Unfortunately mob decisions have been going on for years. A few years ago a movie, The Golden Compass, I think, was boycotted for religious reasons. It offended them (without seeing the movie) so instead of not attending the movie, an organized boycott was launched. Their attitude was I don't want to see it and I don't want you to see it either.

    So, yeah, we should be less offended. Let someone have their say and if you don't like it, ignore it. Except when the statement is an offense against mankind. You don't need religious values (or lack of them) to realize what Rosanne wrote was despicable. If it was the first time, ok, let it slide. It wasn't the first time and she finally paid a price.

  213. I get that there is current controversy over some pictures from 2014 of kids in cages and Sessions' statements about separating kids from their parents. And I understand thinking that someone who expresses the love of Mother and child as Ivanka did in her tweet should not tolerate Trump's immigration stance. Hence the seemingly adoring setup and quick angry punchline. Its comedy. And feckless makes perfect sense. Its the next word used that is the problem.

    The point of the satire is that Ivanka was being, what, arrogant or insensitive or dense or just bad timing, or something along those lines. As has been pointed out recently in light of this controversy, the Oxford dictionary considers the C word the most offensive word in the English language. Certainly that is what I have understood since I was a young boy. It does not mean arrogant, insensitive, condescending or stupid. Its much more vile, it means a woman has absolutely no worth as a human. It is not a word to be thrown around lightly in most peoples minds.

    As far as I know, Samantha Bee has never met Ivanka and can't possibly know her well enough at all to use that word.

    So to dismiss it as using a profanity to refer to someone, and then to admonish those who were upset by saying "we spent the day wrestling with the repercussions of one bad word, when we all should have spent the day incensed that as a nation we are wrenching children from their parents…" She doubled down.

    There was no sincerity in her apology. I don't believe she understands why what she said was wrong. There was no contrition at all.

    Maybe Sentiment was the wrong word to use. Miss Bee is entitled to her view on immigration and shouldn't apologize for that, nor for being offended or upset by Ivanka's tweet, npr for pointing out the juxtaposition of the photo with Session's statements in the name of satire. But she should apologize for dehumanizing someone she has never met, doesn't know, and with whom she merely disagrees with politically.

    Bob Iger called Roseanne's statement abhorrent and repugnant and fired her. TBS said we probably shouldn't have aired that.

  214. sleroi

    The point of the satire is that Ivanka was being, what, arrogant or insensitive or dense or just bad timing, or something along those lines. As has been pointed out recently in light of this controversy, the Oxford dictionary considers the C word the most offensive word in the English language. Certainly that is what I have understood since I was a young boy. It does not mean arrogant, insensitive, condescending or stupid. Its much more vile, it means a woman has absolutely no worth as a human. It is not a word to be thrown around lightly in most peoples minds.

    It's a cultural thing, too; in many countries, the "c" word isn't seen as any big deal — it's roughly on a par with "bitch" or "asshole".

    But in the United States — Bee's target audience — it's just about the most taboo swear word there is. There were only two words I was raised never to say, in any circumstance: the "n" word and the "c" word. You can agree or disagree with Bee's larger point, but I think a reasonable person is well within their rights to be offended by the use of that word.

    There's also the larger issue that, as someone who keenly feels the loss of civility in recent years, I don't have much interest in social commentators who are just as rude and discourteous as the people they are critiquing.

    So what's the difference between the Roseanne situation and the Samantha Bee situation, other than the factor of race? One is on a broadcast network while the other is on a cable network. One faced mass departures of cast and crew, the other one didn't. One faced certain difficulties with advertisers; the other may or may not face widespread difficulties with advertisers — though State Farm and Autotrader have already dropped the show.

    Which, I suppose, gets back to Mike's cynical take on the situation.

  215. Johnny Angell

    What if the situation were reversed and Behar said atheists were mentally ill? Would you have been offended on their behalf. Atheists take a lot of verbal abuse from christians but I never hear anyone asking for the offender to be punished. Seems like a double standard to me.

    Really? I'm sure there have been Christians who have been rude to atheists, but we're talking in the media and pop culture – what examples of verbal abuse do you mean? Does it rise to the level of Behar's comments, or Bill Maher weekly anti-religion rants (not the mention the movie he made just to mock my faith), or the anti-Semitic tweets previously referenced in this thread (not directed at Christians, obviously – but it's been open season on the Judeo-Christian faith for at least 15 years in our current culture).

    The only instances I know of Christians confronting atheists are when those same atheists are trying to infringe on their first-amendment right to freedom of religion (and don't even get me started on 'separation of church and state' because that will obviously take this thread completely into territory not allowed here).

  216. I'm reminded of the closing song in that fantastic film Children of Men, where Robbie Williams sings the anthem, "C**ts are still running the world." So true.

    But then, in England, the term just basically means wanker or a-hole, and is not restricted to one gender or the other.

  217. I thought Samantha Bee was funny 15 years ago on The Daily Show, as with the other correspondents from that era. But I find what these politically satirical programs have become are a bit too much for me in regards to venomous hate. I haven't watched this kind of stuff in years because of the depressing negativity. Her use of the c-word doesn't particularly offend me anymore than the general mean tone she has displayed since she started Full Frontal. But if her show has been successful enough at this point I don't see this offending her active viewers. Though mob-rule can definitely affect her show if people decide to boycott TBS as a whole because they are offended from all the news buzz around this, even if none of these people had heard of Samantha Bee before this week. Curious though, did TBS not bleep the word?

  218. Tommy R

    Curious though, did TBS not bleep the word?

    I was wondering that too. I haven't seen it stated either way but it read like they didn't bleep it. I assume that like a number of cable channels now, TBS doesn't censor certain shows.

  219. Is bugger still bad in the UK, or, just a more family friendly version of fu*k (I really only censored that because I don't know if the board will or not)?

    Now, twat gets a lot of play in the UK, but is a more obscure and not quite as understood word in the US. Though it's not on a list of friendly words 'round these parts.

  220. The Obsolete Man

    Is bugger still bad in the UK, or, just a more family friendly version of fu*k (I really only censored that because I don't know if the board will or not)?

    Now, twat gets a lot of play in the UK, but is a more obscure and not quite as understood word in the US. Though it's not on a list of friendly words 'round these parts.

    Bugger has a couple of meanings, the one that means darn (close approximation) got a lot of play when I was growing up. I still say “oh bugger, I forgot” and the like from time to time.

    Twat is a common insult and I admit I use it quite a lot though not around Americans that I’m not that close to (just because I don’t want them thninking I’m saying the version of that word with an ‘O’ and getting confused).

    I use it to describe certain politicians with enormous frequency 🙂

  221. Neil Middlemiss

    Twat is a common insult and I admit I use it quite a lot though not around Americans that I’m not that close to (just because I don’t want them thninking I’m saying the version of that word with an ‘O’ and getting confused).

    "Twat" is another word I exclude from my vocabulary, for the same reasons as the "c" word (but not quite as severe).

  222. Mike Frezon

    Huh. I wasn't aware this was even an open question.
    I guess I should feel good when people consider me mentally ill because of my religious beliefs.
    […]
    The fact that there are people who even question whether Christians should be offended by what Behar said is amazing to me.
    […]
    She offended people–many, many people. Just like Roseanne did. And to stay true to my only point for bringing all this up…ABC should have taken some kind of action against Behar and/or The View.

    What would you personally get out of ABC taking action against Joy Behar or The View and what would that action be? Whatever the action would be, would it be enough for you or someone else?

    Why do so many Christians live in perpetual states of being offended, but they object when others find offense with any of their beliefs?

    [Content removed by moderator for political content.]

    I can tell you for a fact that people choose whether to be offended or not. My spiritual advice: Take no offense. That which offends you only weakens you. Being offended creates the same destructive energy that offended you in the first place–so transcend your ego and stay in peace.

  223. Everyone has a different threshold on this, and your "I hate Trump" rant is noted. The main topic of this thread is what consequences should ensue from a public figure's offensive speech. Personally, I'm with others who are content to let the free market decide. That means Roseanne stays on, Full Frontal stays on, and people vote with their viewing habits which, if any, they wish to support.

  224. MartinP.

    Why do so many Christians live in perpetual states of being offended, but they object when others find offense with any of their beliefs?

    We're definitely getting out of the acceptable bounds of HTF discourse at this point. Fair to say, though, that Mike is most definitely not someone who lives in a perpetual state of being offended. The Behar video — which I still have not seen — must have been well outside the bounds of normal talk show discourse to provoke such a strong reaction.

    Especially in the case of our fellow HTF members, better to assume good will than assume animosity.

  225. MartinP.

    Why do so many ****insert interest group**** live in perpetual states of being offended, but they object when others find offense with any of their beliefs?

    (More generally).

    This is the human condition, regardless of what the "interest group" is.

    I've known folks who were hardcore Star Wars or Star Trek fanatics, who live in perpetual states of being offended and object when others find offense to their rigid opinions/beliefs about minutiae from Star Trek or Star Wars. 😉

  226. jcroy

    I've known folks who were hardcore Star Wars or Star Trek fanatics, who live in perpetual states of being offended and object when others find offense to their rigid opinions/beliefs about minutiae from Star Trek or Star Wars. 😉

    Damn right. If I hear one more person say something bad about Jar Jar Binks, I'm gonna lose it!

  227. jcroy

    (More generally).

    This is the human condition, regardless of what the "interest group" is.

    I've known folks who were hardcore Star Wars or Star Trek fanatics, who live in perpetual states of being offended and object when others find offense to their rigid opinions/beliefs about minutiae from Star Trek or Star Wars. 😉

    Discovery doesn't fit into canon. FIGHT ME!

  228. Hey, was I the only one that actually watched the entire reboot? Really liked only one episode (with Estelle Parsons as Bev) but found that too many of the other episodes tried too hard to be "relevant" and in a few years would feel dated. (I immediately think of the Dan Quayle jokes on The Golden Girls.)

  229. DaveHof3

    Everyone has a different threshold on this, and your "I hate Trump" rant is noted. The main topic of this thread is what consequences should ensue from a public figure's offensive speech. Personally, I'm with others who are content to let the free market decide. That means Roseanne stays on, Full Frontal stays on, and people vote with their viewing habits which, if any, they wish to support.

    Agreed. Despite someone's odd notion that "so many Christians live in perpetual states of being offended, but they object when others find offense with any of their beliefs", I'm a Christian who doesn't go around looking for ways to be offended. One doesn't have to share my beliefs; it's not going to ruin my day.

    I wasn't looking for pearls to clutch when I heard about what that Bee person said. If she wants to show herself off as someone of low class and no character, that's her business and I think she should go for it. I would be wasting my time to get mad over what she says when she clearly doesn't care what anyone might think. Her vile comments clearly work for her, since she won an award for her work immediately after the incident. When I read about all of this, I didn't get upset; it was more like "Oh…TBS is still around? I thought Conan killed it. Okay…well, another day, another person reveals their true self".

    I do find Joy Behar to be hypocritical since she used the VP to mock people of faith but stayed silent when Oprah soon after also made comments about communicating with God and how she's not running for President because God hadn't yet told her she should. I'll give Behar credit for being smart enough to know she could only get away with mockery if she based it off the comments of someone whose politics aren't in line with most of that industry.

    And she was right. Based on how they've treated Behar, Olbermann and Roseanne, it's clear that Disney (including ABC and ESPN) only feels its "values" are offended when the objectionable/dumb comments are made by someone who favors the current president. That person is seen as worthy of firing. Those who make objectionable/dumb comments but don't favor the current president may receive a mild public "tsk, tsk" at best and keep their jobs.

    I thought Roseanne's tweet was ridiculous and unnecessary, but she has a long history of doing and saying things for either shock value or because she's not in her right mind (or both). So I wasn't too surprised that she did something to get people talking. I think if she were thinking clearly, she would have known that now that she's back on TV she's not someone who's going to receive the benefit of the doubt within her industry about her claim that she didn't know the woman she insulted was black.

    I don't do boycotts and don't need anyone to get fired for what they say, even if I don't like it. I just think it should be that way across the board within a company, without the clear hypocrisy and double standards that favor those whose politics are more in line with the corporate decision makers. Let the person who made the mistake apologize, and then let viewership/ratings determine whether that person is still worthy of being on the air following their lapse in judgment/sanity.

    For me, I can't imagine watching any show that includes Behar, Olbermann or Bee, as their respective styles and program content aren't to my taste. On the other hand, I've never cared much for Roseanne Barr the person other than finding her occasionally fascinating in a "hey, the circus is in town" sort of way, but I do like her sitcom, including her character. This week's tasteless real life comments wouldn't prevent me from watching another season of her show, with her in it. I won't let her off-set antics control me so that I stop watching something I like. (Now if John Goodman – the best person in that series, in my opinion – got fed up enough to quit, then I would stop watching. But that's because the show is never as good when he's not in an episode.)

  230. EricSchulz

    Hey, was I the only one that actually watched the entire reboot? Really liked only one episode (with Estelle Parsons as Bev) but found that too many of the other episodes tried too hard to be "relevant" and in a few years would feel dated. (I immediately think of the Dan Quayle jokes on The Golden Girls.)

    I watched it all. I enjoyed it, but I agree that it was trying a bit too hard. But unlike its co-creator and star, it had a very inclusive voice that I think was a positive and rare thing today. It was in no way a pro-right or pro-Trump propaganda machine like some painted it to be. In fact, I only tuned in after reading a statement from Sara Gilbert about what it was about and that it wasn’t going to be about. And say what you will about Barr, in the reboot she was very willing to make herself (or Roseanne Connor at least) the butt of the jokes or lessons learned, as in the case of the Muslim neighbors episode.

  231. Ok everybody. I've been a bad moderator.

    I did exactly what I advise members against on a very regular basis. I stirred the pot…on a topic which involved religion (and in an ancillary way, politics)…hoping that it would not lead to off-topic rants of a political and religious nature. Wrong!

    First, I apologize for that.

    Second, a couple of reactions to some of what has been posted about my comments.

    My only point in all this was that, for me, ABC acted inconsistently with an immediate ban of Barr and her show and with no action against Behar and her show. I continue to find the two events equal in stature. But, of course, others do not. And we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. it seems that we all as individuals have different thresholds of tolerance when it comes to issues of political, religious, racist and obscene material. What offends one may not offend the other.

    I'm not going to respond to everything (because I am self-moderating 😀 ), but it's clear that quite a bit of what I said was misunderstood.

    What would you personally get out of ABC taking action against Joy Behar or The View and what would that action be? Whatever the action would be, would it be enough for you or someone else?

    My point was NOT that I wanted Behar or The View to face a certain punishment. My point was that there were people who were offended by her comments as much as others who were offended by Barr's comments. And, specifically, that ABC treated them each so differently.

    In my ideal world, the public would decide about whether or not they wanted to continue to patronize a celebrity, a show or a network based upon stupid things said and subsequent action/inaction.

    Third, this is all going to come to an end here. The thread will remain open (for as long as it can). While the topic was originally about the Roseanne reboot, it has since evolved into the discussion about the aftermath of the star's racist comments. We can continue that discussion, of course. And we will continue to allow pertinent other comments about related topical events.

    But we're going to say no more specific comments about religion and politics. In fact, I have just removed some very specific political commentary. I have decided to let the comments about Jar Jar stand.

    Thanks for being understanding about my role in all this. And for those who weren't so understanding, that's okay too. I had it coming. :laugh:

  232. On another note…one of Deadline's articles earlier this week said to expect a decision by Friday about how Roseanne's cancellation will impact the ABC schedule.

    If they did make one, it hasn't been announced yet. But it will probably have to be soon, because ABC is in the process of its upfront sales with advertisers, who will probably want to know what's going to be airing on Tuesdays at 8 before they commit to buying ad space therein.

    Because the remaining Tuesday shows were placed there under the assumption that they would have a strong lead-in from Roseanne, there might be additional tweaks to the schedule beyond just subbing in a new show for Roseanne, too.

    That's why I think any potential offshoot of Roseanne without Barr would have to be for midseason, because they need a quick patch-job now and that would likely take a little longer to develop.

  233. Jake Lipson

    That's why I think any potential offshoot of Roseanne without Barr would have to be for midseason, because they need a quick patch-job now and that would likely take a little longer to develop.

    In a way, a half-hour comedy is the worst show to be at the center of this brouhaha. ABC has a distinct shortage of new inventory in this area, and it's harder to plug in a reality show than can be thrown together quickly in a 30-minute slot than an hour-long slot.

  234. Garysb

    Hearing voices
    It is estimated that between 5% and 28% of the general population hears voices that other people do not.
    .

    Happily, when I talk to myself, there's not a voice in my head that's talking back to me and engaging me in conversation.

    So I'm hopefully sane. 🙂

  235. Tommy R

    Isn't "willy" particularly obscene in the UK as well?

    Seems like at some point I was surprised by how scandalized the British were by the word 'fanny.'

    Like, they kind of swapped it in for what we consider the c-word to be. Since their c-word was already doing more innocuous work.

    Anyone?

  236. Johnny Angell

    Their attitude was I don't want to see it and I don't want you to see it either.

    And there have been reasons why I cannot be that way– as I said with "Jasper70" (real name, Harold), Friends has never been my cup of tea, but I have no beef against those who enjoy it or similar things, and this is also the reason why, albeit I did not agree one bit with those who bashed Wish Upon (w/Joey King), I have acknowledged their right to have those opinions.

  237. I watched the original show back in the day, I haven’t seen the new show. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinions. I’m not campaigning for Rosanne, she did something stupid and now has to deal with the fallout. The hypocrisy of the double standard is what angers me.

    Racist/bigot terms have been thrown around so much they have almost lost their meaning.

  238. Jasper70

    I watched the original show back in the day, I haven’t seen the new show. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinions. I’m not campaigning for Rosanne, she did something stupid and now has to deal with the fallout. The hypocrisy of the double standard is what angers me.

    Racist/bigot terms have been thrown around so much they have almost lost their meaning.

    If people preach and practice the humane decency standard there wouldn't be any double standard as that is what angers me.

  239. Dave Lawrence

    This week's tasteless real life comments wouldn't prevent me from watching another season of her show, with her in it. I won't let her off-set antics control me so that I stop watching something I like.

    +1

    JohnMor

    But unlike its co-creator and star, it had a very inclusive voice that I think was a positive and rare thing today. It was in no way a pro-right or pro-Trump propaganda machine like some painted it to be.

    +1

  240. Mike Frezon

    But we're going to say no more specific comments about religion and politics. In fact, I have just removed some very specific political commentary. I have decided to let the comments about Jar Jar stand.

    Did some of you miss the above in Mike Frezon's post? If you did not, I just deleted some posts that broach those topics again. No more, please as we're done with politics and religion in this thread.

  241. IF ABC went ahead and retooled the show without Roseanne (and I'm not saying that's a wise decision), the only way I could even see it POSSIBLY working would be to title it "The Conners."

    I don't think branding it "Darlene," as some reports have suggested, would work. I don't think she's enough to carry it, and even the title would misleadingly suggest it's centered on her.

    By virtue of the curiosity factor, I do think there'd be an audience for "The Conners" IF ABC is careful to brand it as a show about the whole family. Jackie could move in to help with Darlene's kids, for instance. You do have 2 promising and attractive leads in Goodman and Metcalf.

    I'm not sure I even want that, but just reflecting on it all.

  242. IF ABC went ahead and retooled the show without Roseanne (and I'm not saying that's a wise decision), the only way I could even see it POSSIBLY working would be to title it "The Conners."

    I don't think branding it "Darlene," as some reports have suggested, would work. I don't think she's enough to carry it, and even the title would misleadingly suggest it's centered on her.

    By virtue of the curiosity factor, I do think there'd be an audience for "The Conners" IF ABC is careful to brand it as a show about the whole family. Jackie could move in to help with Darlene's kids, for instance. You do have 2 promising and attractive leads in Goodman and Metcalf.

    I'm not sure I even want that, but just reflecting on it all.

  243. I also do not believe reboot fits Roseanne as it is just a continuation of the previous show and now will be given new life after the Roseanne Barr went off the rails and said something really stupid. Now one of the best examples of reboot IMHO would be Battlestar Galactica. Sure it had some hints of the original show here and there but so much was changed from story plots to character genders and so on. They also took on a darker storyline than the original so Battlestar Galactica was what you would call a reboot not Roseanne.

  244. EricSchulz

    Hey, was I the only one that actually watched the entire reboot? Really liked only one episode (with Estelle Parsons as Bev) but found that too many of the other episodes tried too hard to be "relevant" and in a few years would feel dated. (I immediately think of the Dan Quayle jokes on The Golden Girls.)

    The one with David and Darlene was really good.

  245. Francois Caron

    Number of posts in this thread before Roseanne was cancelled: 90 in 5½ months.
    Number of posts in this thread after Roseanne was cancelled: 250 in a week!

    You people might be a bit obsessed over this! 😀

    Is this including the already deleted posts? 😉

  246. Xphile620

    IF ABC went ahead and retooled the show without Roseanne (and I'm not saying that's a wise decision), the only way I could even see it POSSIBLY working would be to title it "The Conners."

    I don't think branding it "Darlene," as some reports have suggested, would work. I don't think she's enough to carry it, and even the title would misleadingly suggest it's centered on her.

    By virtue of the curiosity factor, I do think there'd be an audience for "The Conners" IF ABC is careful to brand it as a show about the whole family. Jackie could move in to help with Darlene's kids, for instance. You do have 2 promising and attractive leads in Goodman and Metcalf.

    I'm not sure I even want that, but just reflecting on it all.

    How do the explain the absence of Rosanne? No saying I oppose the idea, but I'm wondering how the transition would be handled.

  247. DaveHof3

    […]
    Everyone has a different threshold on this, and your "I hate Trump" rant is noted.
    […]

    Since what I wrote was censored, but this comment stands, I have to correct it.
    What I was writing about is an abhorrence of hypocrisy.

  248. Johnny Angell

    How do they explain the absence of Rosanne? Not saying I oppose the idea, but I'm wondering how the transition would be handled.

    Coincidentally, the last episode of the revival had the Roseanne character preparing to have some sort of surgery the next morning. (I didn't watch the whole episode but caught this in the last minute or so because I turned the TV on for The Middle, which was after.) They can just say she died on the table.

  249. Johnny Angell

    How do they explain the absence of Rosanne? Not saying I oppose the idea, but I'm wondering how the transition would be handled.

    Yeah, and that's where I don't know. I mean, I think the only way to believably do it would be to have her die offscreen.

    I feel like there's no good way to do it, at least any way that would last past a handful of episodes…

  250. Johnny Angell

    How do they explain the absence of Rosanne? Not saying I oppose the idea, but I'm wondering how the transition would be handled.

    She was about to have a knee operation. Sometimes people die under anaesthetic …

  251. Johnny Angell

    How do they explain the absence of Rosanne? Not saying I oppose the idea, but I'm wondering how the transition would be handled.

    It wouldn’t be had.

    The could say anything it doesn’t matter.

    They could say she left and that would be enough.

  252. I hope Barr will seek mental help. She’s doing some really weird stuff. Jew cookies? wtf!

    Sad for all but Gilbert the most. She got this thing going and Barr sunk it. $500,000 an episode isn’t enough to keep your trap shut or suggest to the writers that they work in something you want to say and use your character to do it? Show shows you why character like the Big Bangers are worth the $1M they get.

    I have not watched a rebooter because of Barr’s tweeters activity going on for some some. I absolutely planned to watch after things calmed down in our country… (no political I know, but when someone with a better hair do is running things I was going to watch Roseanne rebooted!! lol and was hoping for a blu ray release of the old series… )

  253. MatthewA

    Why were they so quick to lose one but fought tooth and nail to keep the other?

    The fact of the matter is…we'll never know. Because they aren't being honest and open about any of their many issues, not even to shareholders. And I guess they don't have to be. But I sure wouldn't be surprised to see some upheaval at the upper ranks of the company in the not-so-distant future.

  254. Mike Frezon

    But I sure wouldn't be surprised to see some upheaval at the upper ranks of the company in the not-so-distant future.

    They'll have to do some serious house cleaning at the executive level to get back in the public's good graces.

    [​IMG]

  255. Jake Lipson

    Deadline has a kind of non-update update on the state of a spinoff. Basically, it sounds like ABC would like to do one, if the lawyers can figure out how to let them without cutting in Roseanne on profits:

    https://deadline.com/2018/06/rosean…ful-about-decision-time-nears-abc-1202408413/

    I can't believe I'm defending Roseanne but searching for a legal way to screw her out of money that she would otherwise get is messed up. If she hadn't gotten fired and they did a spinoff, she'd be getting a piece of the financial pie. It'd be good that alot of the people who lost their job would have a job again but this is just ABC looking for a way to shut her out so they can still make money without taking heat for Roseanne making money from it.

  256. TravisR

    If she hadn't gotten fired and they did a spinoff, she'd be getting a piece of the financial pie.

    I agree with your point….but..the counterargument to that is, if she hadn't gotten fired, they wouldn't be doing a spinoff since there would be no need for one; the show would have continued on as it was. It sounds like the new show is basically Roseanne minus Roseanne and with a new name, so it's not like they're even really re-conceiving it.

  257. Jake Lipson

    It sounds like the new show is basically Roseanne minus Roseanne and with a new name, so it's not like they're even really re-conceiving it.

    Yeah so it's the same show and because of that, Roseanne should get a piece. I feel so dirty arguing for her. 🙂

  258. TravisR

    Yeah so it's the same show and because of that, Roseanne should get a piece.

    ABC's argument would be, "Not if she didn't create the original show."

    Anyway, I think the solution is obvious: make it not the same show.

    If they actually create a new show and cast the stars of Roseanne in it as new characters, then it's not the same show. Like how Kevin Can Wait wasn't King of Queens, even though both were family sitcoms which had Kevin James in the lead role. Or like how American Horror Story reboots itself every year with a new storyline

    That might not be as easy of a thing for the marketing department to sell than "Roseanne minus Roseanne," but it would accomplish the other stated goals of ABC continuing to be in business with this cast, and keeping everybody else employed, without having to be required to pay Barr.

  259. ABC apparently wont go ahead with a reboot of show if Roseanne Barr profits in anyway from the reboot. This was said to be the hold up. They want to make sure she will not have a case to sue ABC if they go ahead with the show. One thing I read was that when the original pilot aired Roseanne got pissed that Matt Williams was credited as the creator of the show. Hence the credit, "Based on a character created by Roseanne Barr." The question becomes if you don't use the character Roseanne Connor or even mention her, does that allow them not to pay her. Matt Williams wrote the original pilot and therefore gets the credit as creator. Roseanne definitely had a lot of input in shaping the characters and the direction of the original show but that was after the pilot. We don't have access to the contracts and I would think whatever they say would be the deciding factor. I don't think just changing the names of the characters but keeping the same situation and relationships would shield ABC from a lawsuit, if one were filed. So I don't think we are going to see Don Bonner , his daughter Arlene, and sister -in – law Mackie in the fall.

  260. I wasn't suggesting we should see Dan Bonner, etc.

    I think they should genuinely, actually, do a new show in a different situation with the same cast members actually playing new roles.

    If it's something new, then Roseanne won't (and shouldn't) get credit.

    If it's a spinoff of Roseanne without the Roseanne character, that's where it gets dicey.

  261. TravisR

    I feel so dirty arguing for her. 🙂

    Malcolm R

    They might also be trying to get Roseanne to sign a waiver/release of her rights to the show from this point forward.

    It looks like that's exactly what's happening according to the link Gary just posted. She'll get a one-time payment from Casey-Werner (not ABC) in order to waive her rights to the spinoff, and then they can proceed. If she's agreeing to this, that should settle their attempts to subvert her, so no need to feel dirty, Travis.

    I think agreeing to stand down is the least she can do after her reckless tweet cost everybody else their jobs for something she did.

  262. Jake Lipson

    I wasn't suggesting we should see Dan Bonner, etc.

    I think they should genuinely, actually, do a new show in a different situation with the same cast members actually playing new roles.

    If it's something new, then Roseanne won't (and shouldn't) get credit.

    If it's a spinoff of Roseanne without the Roseanne character, that's where it gets dicey.

    When kids who can't act grow up into adults that can't act, the only thing anyone is willing to watch them in is a reunion show of the original thing.

  263. I understand why they have to separate themselves from Roseanne, but this show, without her?

    I don't see it lasting 2 months. I love Goodman, and like his character, but I don't see more than 2 actors in the rest of the cast.

  264. They have nothing to lose.

    If the show works, great. It will at the very least have a huge premiere out of curiosity. If it doesn't work out, they would have had to pay the cast for the new season anyway, since their options were picked up before the original was cancelled. They might as well get new episodes out of it.

    If the show doesn't work out and they cancel it, they're no worse off than they were right now for having cancelled the current version of the show.

  265. Season 1(1) of The Conners officially a go for the fall

    https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/roseanne-spinoff-conners-officially-a-go-at-abc-1117397

    Right now, IMO, they have the Trainwreck factor going for them.

    People will tune into that first episode to see what happened.

    It happened with Two and a Half Men in season 9, and the Charlie Sheen thing happened farther in the past before the premiere of their new season than the Roseanne deal will have happened by the time season 1(1) of The Conners premieres. So it'll still be relatively fresh and some hype still going over it.

    And that's where they have a chance to hook people.

  266. I’ll watch it and see since I enjoyed the reboot. But as much as I am not a fan of Roseanne Barr, I do feel the character of Roseanne Conner was absolutely the series’ fulcrum. She was the heart and soul. Curious to see if it sustains without her. But either way, I’m glad that it’s keeping the cast & crew employed after all.

  267. JohnMor

    Curious to see if it sustains without her.

    Since they were on the hook to pay the stars for the scrapped Season 11 anyway, they might as well try this and see what happens.

    Obviously, it will get a huge premiere sampling out of curiosity to see how they move forward. I'll be interested to see where it settles in in about week four or five of its run. But even if it craters, it's better to try and keep people employed than not try at all.

  268. And due to all the legal stuff BTS with Roseanne, it's important to note this is a spin-off. This is a separate series.

    So if it's utterly awful, we have Roseanne Seasons 1-10, and then this would be the Season 9 dream season redux.

    I'll be checking it out, but I really hope they don't kill off Roseanne, I think that would be a big mistake that would completely change the tone of the show and lead to a pretty swift demise.

  269. Xphile620

    I'll be checking it out, but I really hope they don't kill off Roseanne, I think that would be a big mistake that would completely change the tone of the show and lead to a pretty swift demise.

    How else would you propose they explain her absence? It seems like they have to either kill her or turn her into an absentee parent/spouse who bailed on her family.

    Between the two, it would seem killing her is easier.

  270. Jake Lipson

    How else would you propose they explain her absence? It seems like they have to either kill her or turn her into an absentee parent/spouse who bailed on her family.

    I dunno. It seems like there's plenty more options. She could get seriously sick–think coma (soap operas LOVE that one 😉 ). And leaving open the tiniest crack of a possible return would–seem to me–to be too tempting to remove.

    Of course, they killed off Goodman's character and he was resurrected…

  271. Jake Lipson

    The final episode of the revival season had her going under the knife for some kind of surgery the next day.

    "She died during surgery." Done. It's almost too easy to believe.

    And if they didn't want to go that simple, she ODed on pain pills shortly after surgery, so they can address the opioid issue.

  272. Jake Lipson

    How else would you propose they explain her absence? It seems like they have to either kill her or turn her into an absentee parent/spouse who bailed on her family.

    Between the two, it would seem killing her is easier.

    What about a rehab stay? It was set up pretty much in the last couple of episodes, right along the knee surgery…

    And yeah it would probably be easier to kill her off, but I don't think that would work in terms of the show's tone. I really don't think the ratings would support the show past those 10 episodes if that's the tone set right off the bat. Not to mention the viewers who don't support the spin-off to begin with…

  273. I'm doubtful this can last more than a season. Those that had no interest in the show before still won't, and those now bitter about Roseanne being fired won't want to watch either. But I'm glad that the cast and crew get to stay employed for the time being.

  274. When I watched the “new” show I was surprised by how little really Roseanne was the centre of the show. I think if they kill her off, off stage and start the time line say a year later past all the weeping scenes that could take place it would work. She can of course be referred to occasionally, and have a picture on the mantle, but move on.

  275. That's how they handled the deaths of characters whose actors actually died themselves on Sesame Street and Gimme A Break!, and also how Archie Bunker's Place handled Edith Bunker's death after Jean Stapleton wanted out.

  276. Has there been any information on the actual settlement with Roseanne herself? Originally they said a continuation of the same characters wouldn’t be possible because she would still benefit as the creator. Did they get her to sign away her rights, or did they decide it was okay for her to still benefit without being involved?

  277. Mark-P

    Did they get her to sign away her rights

    Yes. What I read is that she signed an agreement waiving her rights to the spinoff . She retains the rights to the Roseanne Connor character, who won't be used in the spinoff, and retains rights to any hypothetical future revival of Roseanne proper (although that won't happen now anyway.) She says she signed it to allow the cast and crew to return to work. The producer probably made a one-time payment of "go away money," but it didn't come out of ABC's pocket, and she will have no involvement going forward. You can read about this in some of the articles in the trades about the series pickup.

  278. My guess is that, despite her bluster, she felt guilty about causing all of those people to lose their jobs.

    She not only retains the rights to the Roseanne Conner character and spinoffs from "Roseanne", she also retains the rights to any spinoffs from "The Conners". This is literally a one-off exception.

  279. If you disagree with moderation activity, report it or contact the moderators directly. Threads aren’t for moderation fight club. Apologies also to those with comments caught in the middle of this.

    “18. No public disagreements. Anyone arguing with a moderator regarding enforcement of forum rules and guidelines or disciplinary action will be immediately removed. This includes "indirect" argument, where a member vents about a moderator's action being "unjustified", "excessive", etc.”

    https://www.hometheaterforum.com/community/help/terms

  280. Adam Lenhardt

    She not only retains the rights to the Roseanne Conner character and spinoffs from "Roseanne", she also retains the rights to any spinoffs from "The Conners". This is literally a one-off exception.

    Which is why there probably won't be any further spinoffs.

    Also, I do believe she genuinely felt sorry for causing people to lose their jobs. I don't believe she intended that, and all the other people who worked on her show are people that she knows. So for us to say "200 people lost their jobs" is abstract because we don't know them personally, but she does, and that had to have an impact on her.

    The thing to me that is alarming is for her to be able to type out what she did and look at it and click "Tweet" without actually thinking or realizing that it might cost people their jobs in the first place. Any rational person, especially a successful businessperson such as herself, should be able to realize that making that statement would lead to exactly what it did lead to. The fact that she didn't makes me think she might really have something wrong with her mentally, and if she does, I hope she receives help.

  281. Jake Lipson

    The thing to me that is alarming is for her to be able to type out what she did and look at it and click "Tweet" without actually thinking or realizing that it might cost people their jobs in the first place. Any rational person, especially a successful businessperson such as herself, should be able to realize that making that statement would lead to exactly what it did lead to. The fact that she didn't makes me think she might really have something wrong with her mentally, and if she does, I hope she receives help.

    I am constantly amazed by the people that post "joking" threats on Facebook or Twitter, or illegal activities they are doing on Instagram. You'd think eventually all these stories would get someone to say "hmmm, maybe I should rethink posting this."

  282. A quote from an article in the NY Times said it best I think
    " I’m not sure if anything will make “The Conners” popular. There may already be too much fallout from conservatives alienated by Ms. Barr’s ouster, liberals infuriated that ABC ever brought her back in the first place or nonpartisans who simply liked an old favorite character and don’t want to be bummed out by a show without her.

    “The Conners” could limp on for years, like “The Hogan Family” once did without Valerie Harper. Or it could be a one-time curtain call in which the characters, and the audience, say goodbye.

    But if the show is returning regardless, it might as well try to do right by the job of letting go of letting what’s dead die, and letting life go on. "

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/…lights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront

  283. Garysb

    liberals infuriated that ABC ever brought her back in the first place or nonpartisans who simply liked an old favorite character and don’t want to be bummed out by a show without her.

    This always bugs me. Why not just say, “some people may be infuriated and other people don’t want to be bummed out by a show without her.”

  284. I liked the new Roseanne and am kind of bummed that so much real-life baggage will be plaguing it's continuation. I'll watch it though, and hope to enjoy it for however long it'll last. I just feel like I've become good at just enjoying things without worrying about who these people are in real like. Mel Gibson for one is worse than Roseanne Barr at face value if you ask me, but nothing is going to stop me from enjoying Lethal Weapon and Ransom when I hear them calling. I mean, seriously, if we were to boycott everything that has a despicable person making money off of, there would literally nothing on tv. Plus, for every bad person making money off of something we like, there are probably dozens more who are honest hard working people who make a living off the entertainment industry.

  285. Tommy R

    I liked the new Roseanne and am kind of bummed that so much real-life baggage will be plaguing it's continuation.

    i get that…but from ABC's perspective there's no way it could have continued in the form that it was after Barr's racist comments. There is no one to blame for her ouster but herself. Like Bill Cosby (albeit for a very different reason), It's a sad end to a remarkable television legacy perpetuated by their own inability to behave properly with regard to others.

    Even if it ends up being terrible, the show moving forward and making an attempt to redefine itself while saving 200 jobs is better than it not moving forward at all.

  286. Xphile620

    And due to all the legal stuff BTS with Roseanne, it's important to note this is a spin-off. This is a separate series.

    It may not be a spin-off. Who knows what the actors' contracts are like? If it's a NEW show, their contracts may not carry over and they'd have to be paid twice. It may well be that this new show has to be considered a renaming of the same show. Remember what happened with Game of Thrones. The actors were contracted for 10 episodes and when the producers stretched the last season out to 12, they had to make sure that no character appeared in more than 10 episodes.

  287. MishaLauenstein

    It may not be a spin-off. Who knows what the actors' contracts are like? If it's a NEW show, their contracts may not carry over and they'd have to be paid twice. It may well be that this new show has to be considered a renaming of the same show.

    It is a spinoff; if it was considered the same show, Roseanne would have to be compensated. She waived her rights to the spinoff, not to the original show. Any hypothetical future revival of "Roseanne" would still include her financial involvement. "The Connors" does not. According to Deadline, the actors negotiated new deals for the spinoff to replace the ones thy had made for season 11, so ABC won't be paying them twice. But they're making the same per-episode fees they would have on season 11.

  288. Tommy R

    I liked the new Roseanne and am kind of bummed that so much real-life baggage will be plaguing it's continuation. I'll watch it though, and hope to enjoy it for however long it'll last. I just feel like I've become good at just enjoying things without worrying about who these people are in real like. Mel Gibson for one is worse than Roseanne Barr at face value if you ask me, but nothing is going to stop me from enjoying Lethal Weapon and Ransom when I hear them calling. I mean, seriously, if we were to boycott everything that has a despicable person making money off of, there would literally nothing on tv. Plus, for every bad person making money off of something we like, there are probably dozens more who are honest hard working people who make a living off the entertainment industry.

    I try to divorce the real person from the actor. How many times have I seen an actor on a talk show reveal they are a complete dork, and yet I still enjoy their acting?

  289. Jake Lipson

    It is a spinoff; if it was considered the same show, Roseanne would have to be compensated. She waived her rights to the spinoff, not to the original show. Any hypothetical future revival of "Roseanne" would still include her financial involvement. "The Connors" does not. According to Deadline, the actors negotiated new deals for the spinoff to replace the ones thy had made for season 11, so ABC won't be paying them twice. But they're making the same per-episode fees they would have on season 11.

    True. Roseanne still benefits financially from the original series (as she should) but in order for the show to continue, it had to be a spin-off.

  290. Tommy R

    I liked the new Roseanne and am kind of bummed that so much real-life baggage will be plaguing it's continuation. I'll watch it though, and hope to enjoy it for however long it'll last. I just feel like I've become good at just enjoying things without worrying about who these people are in real like. Mel Gibson for one is worse than Roseanne Barr at face value if you ask me, but nothing is going to stop me from enjoying Lethal Weapon and Ransom when I hear them calling. I mean, seriously, if we were to boycott everything that has a despicable person making money off of, there would literally nothing on tv. Plus, for every bad person making money off of something we like, there are probably dozens more who are honest hard working people who make a living off the entertainment industry.

    Completely childish, I know, but I no longer watch Gibson's movies. Certain things a celebrity does completely destroy their past work.

    There are others I don't watch simply because because I don't like them, they're still good, talented people.

    An actor being a dork on a talk show is different. They know when not to go to far and get into insult territory.

  291. I'm not sure I buy the whole "saving jobs" aspect of this.

    I mean, I get it, the people that were working on the show get to continue working, but the "jobs" would still exist, if another show took the time slot. It would just be different people filling the jobs.

    Let's stop acting like "jobs" are being saved here.

  292. Well the crew working on Roseanne thought they had at least one more year of guaranteed work, and likely made plans and purchases accordingly. Then they had that year's salary abruptly taken away.

    Yes, they may be able to get another job on another show, but there's no guarantee it would happen immediately or at the same salary level. It could have put many of them in a bad spot financially. These are not the actors who have millions in the bank to fall back on; most of these crew members are likely middle class and need a regular paycheck.

  293. Malcolm R

    Well the crew working on Roseanne thought they had at least one more year of guaranteed work, and likely made plans and purchases accordingly. Then they had that year's salary abruptly taken away.

    Yes, they may be able to get another job on another show, but there's no guarantee it would happen immediately or at the same salary level. It could have put many of them in a bad spot financially. These are not the actors who have millions in the bank to fall back on; most of these crew members are likely middle class and depend on a regular paycheck.

    I understand that. But, someone else would get work, who was probably out of work. They still have to fill a time slot.

  294. Dheiner

    I understand that. But, someone else would get work, who was probably out of work. They still have to fill a time slot.

    The difference is that people who worked on new pilots that didn't go to series knew that not being picked up was a distinct possibility. It's unfortunate but that's how the business works.

    The crew of Roseanne were on the #1 series on television last season, which seemed to afford them a levvel of security and expectation that they would continue to be employed that is not there when you are dealing with a genuinely new pilot. To be handed a season pickup, and then have that suddenly taken away, after most other series for that year have already been staffed up, is a tough break. So it's good that these people get to maintain their jobs after all.

  295. MatthewA

    If this is a success, do you think they'd even try The Huxtables without Bill Cosby? NBC wanted Cosby himself for a new, unrelated show when the rape allegations arose.

    Like ABC with Roseanne, NBC would have to convince Bill Cosby to sign away his rights to the characters without compensation. Given his recent appearances in public as bitter, spiteful, and unapologetic, I don't see that happening.

  296. The difference is that Bill Cosby is going to jail and Roseanne is just a pariah. And also that Disney never had anything to do with The Cosby Show despite employing its cast members on side projects every now and then. I still think that's when things changed for this show. They enabled the last season to turn out the way it did because they knew it was the end, that she'd fight them every step of the way for anything she wanted badly enough, and they were probably focusing more on the hype around Ellen's coming out.

  297. Speaking of Cosby, I see this evening that cable network TV One has started showing reruns of The Cosby Show again. They, like other channels, took the reruns off after the verdict. They must have started this week because they're showing Season 1 episodes. It looks like they're going all in on this show because I see that tomorrow they have a 3-hour afternoon block and a 2 hour evening block of episodes scheduled.

    I wonder which channel will be the 1st to bring back reruns of the original Roseanne series. I'm sure it'll happen eventually, after the Roseanne-less Sara Gilbert project dies and the general public moves on to its next distraction.

  298. Stan

    Completely childish, I know, but I no longer watch Gibson's movies. Certain things a celebrity does completely destroy their past work.

    It should be noted that apparently Gibson has worked hard to atone for his past mistakes. He's also been candid about his struggles with alcoholism. I see him more as a flawed person than a bad person as opposed to say, Cosby who as it turns out has been a scumbag for decades.

  299. Next year, it will be 30 years since "Chicken Soup," a popular and high-rated sitcom, was pulled from the air by ABC because of inflammatory statements made by its stand-up comic star, Jackie Mason.

  300. Talk about doing a complete 180 degrees. ABC execs have come out saying that are are very worried that "The Connors" are going to crash and burn in the ratings without its fired star in the show. These execs are simply fearful the the ratings will tank for the new show considering the outpouring of support that fans have for Roseanne. While neither the source who released this information nor the executives were named, they may have cause to worry since the firing was labeled by the executives as a knee-jerk reaction of her termination from the show and that she should have simply been suspended for a period of time.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6261259/ABC-fears-Conners-flop-without-Roseanne-Barr.html

    Deadline even reviewed the new show, that airs tonight, and they wrote a mild review of the new sitcom, which it details more of what's wrong with the show, even without Roseanne Barr. They talked about how devoid the new show is without the craziness and that the one-liners from Lecy Goranson that you can see coming before they land.

    https://deadline.com/2018/10/the-co…gilbert-racist-tweets-scandal-abc-1202481367/

    Be interesting to watch the pilot to see what the deal is with the new show as I'm willing to give anything a chance.

  301. tempest21

    Talk about doing a complete 180 degrees. ABC execs have come out saying that are are very worried that "The Connors" are going to crash and burn in the ratings without its fired star in the show.

    That's not a 180 flip because it's not the same executives. Channing Dungey is the one who made the ultimate call to cancel the show and she has always maintained her stance that it was the right thing to do. If other executives under her are nervous, that's their stance.

  302. I can't imagine the show's ratings not tanking. I'm glad the cast and crew were employed again and I wish ABC, etc. the best of luck but it seems hard to believe that the audience is going to stick around for the long term for "Roseanne Without Roseanne".

  303. It wasn't a bad episode but it wasn't great either. It just brought back painful memories I have of my mother's recent passing away. Most of the episode was rather dull but it Sara Gilbert who kind of stepped up. But, I didn't find any of the jokes particularly funny. I might tune in to a few more episodes but this one was just too depressing.

  304. Such an odd experience to see these characters mourning the character as dead, and really the object of attention just got fired, but the actor family have to put it all out there to act like she's dead (Gilbert and Metcalf pull it off nicely). It must be even weirder for Roseanne to tune in see her own wake put on by former coworkers.

    Curiosity satisfied, moving on from this (but it's not personal; just don't do sitcoms anymore).

  305. I watched and it was odd seeing the abrupt transformation take place after just a few short months.

    The episode was ok but I fear these folks by themselves aren't interesting or funny enough to pull of a long term stellar show like we once knew.

    Even though his character was meant to be having a rough time, it just felt as is John Goodman himself was just not into the whole thing. He just looked worn out and was doing it mainly for the younger actors and crew.

    I'll try another couple of episodes to see if they can find their new groove.

  306. I thought it was every bit as good as last year's season. Though I've always been a fan of "Roseanne" without particularly liking Roseanne. So I'm fine with '"Roseanne" without Roseanne'. I thought it was story wise very organic the way they killed her off as they actually set up her addiction last season before she got herself fired. My wife and I will happily continue watching for however long it lasts.

  307. The thing is, the studio isn't going to see anywhere near the numbers they saw with the Roseanne reboot. Looks like the premiere did 7.7. Roseanne reboot premiere did 18.0 during its initial few episodes then starting dropping down to around 10.5. The Connors are down to 7.7, but expect those numbers to be adjusted down for the second episode, probably around 5-6.

    Dropping Roseanne Barr has had a negative effect on the ratings.

  308. I'm not sure where your numbers are from, or what "7.7" means? Is that supposed to be some demographic rating, or the overall audience number?

    These are the numbers being reported by TV By the Numbers, which are not bad at all:

    View attachment 50794

    https://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/daily-ratings/tv-ratings-tuesday-oct-16-2018/

    "The Connors" wins it's time slot by a sizable margin. Still off from the last season of "Roseanne," as to be expected, but not far from that season's lowest rated episode of 2.5 in the 18-49 demo.

    Plus, if you count the reworked/re-titled show as a "new" series, it's the highest rated debut of any new show this season.

  309. And it was roughly on par with the audience size that Roseanne had in its season-turned-series finale that aired back in May. Of course it was going to be down from the mega-opener that the revival had; it would have been down from that anyway even if Roseanne had not been fired and this was the season premiere of Roseanne in its previous iteration. ABC should be pleased with these numbers. To retain the vast majority of the viewers who were tuning in back in May despite Barr's absence has to be seen as a win.

    https://tvline.com/2018/10/17/the-conners-ratings-spinoff-series-premiere-roseanne-dies/

  310. I wish this new incarnation success.
    I was not a viewer of Rosanne;
    but I felt that the cast and crew were dealt a nasty hand.
    The off-set actions of one and EVERYONE ELSE gets canned, too?
    I hope that the new premises and dynamics of the cast are given their due time to grow and develop.
    There's a lot of talent in that room and its their time to shine even further.
    Win, lose or draw; it was the right thing for ABC to do.
    Good luck to them all !!!

  311. I'll be more interested to see the ratings over the next couple of weeks. I expected them to be high for last night's debut because of the curiosity factor. As a viewer of both the original Roseanne series as well as the revival from earlier this year, I watched last night's show to see how things would be handled, and I don't plan on watching any of the remaining episodes.

    Outside of a couple of John Goodman-centered moments and the Estelle Parsons cameo, I thought the show was awful. They should have just renamed the series "Everybody Loves Darlene". It was clear last season that Sara Gilbert, also a producer, was wanting this to be a more Darlene-centric series. Now with Roseanne gone, it's definitely going that way. Gilbert was a major part of almost every scene in last night's episode, with her character being portrayed as the go-to person who can do everything and encourage everyone. Sorry, but while I would have watched another season of Roseanne's show, I'm not interested in watching the Sara Gilbert vanity project.

    I don't typically wish for a show's cancellation, even if I don't want to see it. But in this case, I hope it has a huge drop-off in ratings over the next few weeks and does not get a renewal. I look forward to seeing Goodman and Laurie Metcalf again in their next projects.

  312. I watched it last night. To be honest I thought it was be worse than it was. Yes, it’s Darlene-centric but some of it was funny and true (Jackie, for example). I found the reboot wildly uneven so we’ll see where this goes.

  313. I am disappointed in the direction they have taken Darlene and David's son, Mark.
    Last year he seemed to be a kid that like to wear flamboyant clothes, perhaps transgender or transsexual, perhaps not. This character was interesting, with a wide path for development, and many different possibilities.
    Now, they seem to have made him into a stereotype: "The Flaming Gay" kid. BORING!
    I have zero problem with the sexual orientation of any character. I just hate that they made this boring choice rather than pursue another path.

  314. Hollywood has never been able to treat certain groups of our population with any kind of respect. It happened a lot with black characters in the 70's and 80's in Hollywood. Your typical black character was always portrayed as a thug or part of the criminal element. Today, Hollywood has just shifted the momentum to other groups.

    How many times has Hollywood white-washed a Japanese anime property from predominantly Asian characters (think Ghost in the Shell movie) Major Motoko Kusanagi, portrayed by an American actress (Scarlett Johansson). LGBTQ characters are no different, Hollywood just focuses to another marginalized group.

    I think Hollywood doesn't know how to write these characters and they become too pigeonholed before they figure it out.

  315. Doesn't look like "The Connors" is doing very well in the ratings. Deadline reports that the spinoff sitcom "was down 29% in 18-49 (-26% from the fast national) and down 26% in viewers from the premiere." Looks like the executives at ABC should have rethought their plans regarding Roseanne Barr before they killed off her character and paid the actress a large sum of money. Speculation is that the series might not survive past this first season.

    Johnny Depp beats the hell out of wife, they keep him as an actor with the studio. But, they fire James Gunn and Roseanne Barr? ABC is in the same boat as they were in when they were talking about bringing Dan Connor back from the dead. This time, it's Roseanne they need to bring back from the dead (or ignore The Connors series and bring Roseanne back for a second season).

  316. Nonsense. The Conners is actually holding up well. From EW:

    “The Conners had 7.7 million viewers and a 1.8 rating among adults 18-49, which is up a tenth of a point from last week, which was up against the World Series.

    The series’ strong premiere number was largely chalked up to curiosity about how the show would resolve the departure of star Roseanne Barr. But that the subsequent two episodes have delivered a roughly similar (and still very good) number is definitely a positive sign suggesting some degree of stability, with The Conners once again coming in second place to NBC’s This Is Us in the demo. The next few weeks will continue to be crucial, but at least at this point the comedy is doing very well while out from under the shadow of its former star.”

  317. tempest21

    Doesn't look like "The Connors" is doing very well in the ratings. Deadline reports that the spinoff sitcom "was down 29% in 18-49 (-26% from the fast national) and down 26% in viewers from the premiere." .

    Did they also mention the show is the highest rated sitcom ABC has by far, won the 18-49 demo at 8 PM and was second in the night only to This Is Us, and is virtually stable from last week to this week?

    https://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/daily-ratings/tuesday-final-ratings-oct-30-2018/

    I'm betting ABC wishes they had all their shows "not doing very well" like that.

  318. I don't let facts get in the way of what I'm posting and I don't consider facts about information to be inconvenient either. I'm just careful about how much I post from another new media website. I don't post it unless I have a source where that information is coming from. I try to stay away from posting entire snippets of a new article because news media sites have the tendency to get irate when people cut and paste the entire length of their story on another website. That's why I also post links.

    While some media organizations don't go looking for it, they tend to allow their lawyers to file complaints against the website where their entire articles have been reposted at. Check out the many articles about C&D letters and intellectual property lawsuits filed against websites quite frequently. techdirt.com is always reporting on this and there are free speech lawyers who are always taking up these cases to defend websites from.

    I'm just very careful about how much I post from another article from those sites, as everyone should be careful when reposting.

  319. Since the topic has come up, it's as good a time as any to remind members that we have a section on that very topic in our rules:

    12. No quoting entire articles.

    We do not allow the copying and pasting of entire articles from other sites or publications, even if proper credit is given, unless you have express permission from the copyright holder. Please quote only relevant excerpts, and provide a link back to the original in its entirety.

  320. Mike Frezon

    Since the topic has come up, it's as good a time as any to remind members that we have a section on that very topic in our rules:

    Thanks, Mike. That's something that many forum members on many websites don't realize and exactly why I also don't allow it on my own anime community forums. These days, with all of the lawsuits being filed by news organizations, you can;t be too careful. Fair use only allows brief snippets of a news article, if you're cut and pasting contents of said article. 😉

  321. Channing Dungey, the executive who fired Roseanne, has left ABC. Meanwhile, the novelty of what is essentially Roseanne without Roseanne is starting to wear off; ratings are still down from the season 9 and 10 premieres, and the cast is taking a pay cut.

    Bottom line: don't expect this show to last as long as Valerie did without Valerie Harper; that also involved a network change to get it a sixth season to push it over the 100-episode mark.* This is damage control and everyone knows it. I honestly think this season may be it.

    *The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air and Blossom replaced it and ALF on NBC's Monday night line-up. Yet again, Jason Bateman got pushed out for Alfonzo Ribiero. Somehow I don't think that'll happen a third time.

Leave a Reply