TMZ: ABC Roseanne Reboot Announcement - Imminent

Yeah, if the rest of the series was as ham-fisted political as the first episode I would have tuned out. Fortunately, it got better.

 

I beg to differ myself. The first episode was what got the President to remark about the ratings, and I know a number of his "appreciators" (I'm not among that number) that tuned into the show thereafter because Roseanne was talking appreciatively of Trump. This was the cause of a lot of talk on Facebook about the show as well, which was more fuel to the fire. I think the political aspect even if only most heavily a part of the first episode was a catalyst to a large viewership.

 

Yes, it's likely some people were watching the show because they liked Roseanne's off-camera political views. Those viewers are not probably going to come back for a Roseanne-less show regardless of what the writers do. There's not much they can do to appeal to such viewers because it wasn't the content of the show itself that was drawing them in, since the show was not political beyond the first episode.

 

If you rastified her by 10% I think it would work...

 

I only watched three episodes myself, and there were political "bombs" in each. I think the numbers of those watching the show for political views . . . were larger than some here think. But whatever. I wish a new show well, but I stopped watching this one after episode four (missed the third) and probably won't watch a reboot. (I stopped because it just wasn't that interesting a show for me.)

 

Roseanne Barr posts cryptic tweet amid talks of ABC continuing show without her

 

TMZ is actually considered the most reliable Hollywood news source.

 

'Roseanne' Spinoff Inches Closer to Reality at ABC

‘Roseanne’ Spinoff Talks Heat Up at ABC

‘Roseanne’ Followup Without Roseanne Barr Inches Forward, Hurdles Remain

ABC To Announce 'Roseanne' Spinoff As Early As TOMORROW

 

Any spin off is going ring hollow without the main creator of this series. It’s like Archie Bunker’s Place without Archie. It doesn’t work. Most of these actors don’t need this.

The residuals of the earlier show due to syndication has made them wealthy (despite it being pulled by most retro stations). I’d think, at this point, the negative connotations with Roseanne would submarine anything trying to go forward. Give it some time and then try to give it a go. Things are a little too raw right now.

Let’s get something going with Sarah Chalke. Whatever. I LIKE her.

 

The series was never about just Roseanne. It was an ensemble cast where every main cast member got screen time and plot and character development of their own.

 

Roseanne is the main star. Her name is on the show. She was essential in developing what it is.

The main problem, as I see it, is ABC wants to make she makes no financial gain going forward. How do you do that when she’s a developer of the series and responsibile for the majority of the characters and plot lines ?

 

If we were talking when it was originally on, I would agree but with all the kids grown-up now and most with their own families there is a lot more stories to tell. We didn't even get a plot line with DJ or Jackie really in the tenth season. They barely scratched the surface with these characters in the present day. Plus the second season has already been paid for. ABC has nothing to lose trying it out without Roseanne.

 

She is the main star, but I would say she's not as essential to the show as say, Archie Bunker was to All in the Family. The cast is much larger than AITF was, and they have plotlines centering around all the characters. In some episodes Roseanne is just a peripheral character and the main story is about other characters. Her absence would definitely leave a big hole, but it's not an insurmountable one. On an earlier thread someone said the show without Roseanne would be like Chico and the Man without Chico. But the difference is that on Chico and the Man, Freddie Prinze was in virtually every scene of every episode, and every plot revolved around his character in some way. That is not at all true of Roseanne.

The show was loosely based on her standup act and onstage persona, but the the other characters were created and developed by showrunner Matt Wilson. Roseanne was most definitely not responsible for the majority of the plot lines. The show had a large writing staff who came up with those. She certainly made suggestions and asked for things, but it's not like she was the head writer or showrunner at any time in the show's history.

I think the only way it would work logistically would be if she agreed to a one-time buyout of whatever rights she holds in the series/characters, and then she did not have any executive role or financial participation on an ongoing basis.

 

this guys available to replace Roseanne

 

It already felt like Darlene was the central character of the revival season. She and one or the other of her kids were at the centre of nearly every episode. While there wasn't an episode that really focused on say Dan until the last one.

I was impressed with Sara Gilbert actually. I remembered her as being basically good at one thing (being dry and sarcastic), but she brought deeper, sadder notes to the older Darlene as well. It's really the role she was born to play. With Goodman and Metcalf on board I think she could maybe carry a show (Roseanne wasn't the most versatile actress either).

 

Ok. What do I know? I never watched the original run nor the reboot. I’m apparently talking out of my ass.

 

I really liked Lecy Goranson on the revival also. She's not a great actress but showed some surprisingly nice comedic skills, and I liked what they were doing with her character. The dynamic between her and Darlene works well and she'd be a solid supporting character if they do revive this.

 

No, you're not. I agree with you completely, as do a ton of people out there. We'll see how this shakes out.

I also wouldn't be surprised if after a period of time Roseanne makes amends and they do abs up moving forward with the next season WITH her. Who knows, stranger things have happened.

 

That's highly unlikely to happen. She's toxic and that toxicity is so strong that if they did bring her back in even two or three years the media and social media would just mention the (rightful) reason she lost the show in the first place.

 

It's The Hogan Family all over again

 

I hope so. That show ended up having a longer run without Valerie than it did with her and did quite well after she was fired/left with Sandy Duncan onboard.

 

I spent some time yesterday watching interviews with her from over the last few years, as well as interviews with people who know her and I came away thinking that maybe mental illness is really behind what happened. In one interview with her from 2016 when she was running for public office as a sort of socialist, she mentioned social justice and got teary eyed talking about black people in her family and terrible things they've been through.

My point is that some people deserve to be forgiven, and I wish people can take mental health issues seriously instead of just saying "they're a racist beyond redemption."

Just my opinion. I doubt it will happen in today's social climate but I wouldn't be totally surprised.

 

Sounds like my parents. They never watched the original run, but ended up watching (and enjoying) the reboot. I haven't talk to them since this went down, but it's a pretty sure bet they won't be watching a Roseanne-less show for the reason you stated. And as Forrest Gump once eloquently said, "that's all I have to say about that."

 

yeah...maybe five years it could happen though, mel gibson came back and they had him on tape saying all kinds of craziness

 

Maybe they could get Judy Tenuta, the comediane Roseanne "pays homage to," to play the role of "The Mom."