Roseanne to return...

salmocab

Pkiernan wrote: »

Yes. It is important that speech be curtailed. Only politically correct speech should be allowed.

Her free speech isn’t curtailed, she’s entitled to be racist just like the network are entitled like other businesses to not have racists working for them. Free speech doesn’t mean you can say anything you want and never suffer any consequences.

Pelvis

py2006 wrote: »

Can you imagine the amount of people around the world both famous, political and lay people that would be fired for their comments on trumps physical appearance etc if it was the same rule for all.

She wasn't fired for commenting on someone's appearance, she was fired for being a racist.

Your inability to differentiate between the two is worrying.

py2006

Pelvis wrote: »

She wasn't fired for commenting on someone's appearance, she was fired for being a racist.

Your inability to differentiate between the two is worrying.

I'm aware of the difference smarty pants.

I guess I just want the show to continue.

pl4ichjgy17zwd

py2006 wrote:

I'm aware of the difference smarty pants.

You can't really blame them for pointing it out when you literally made an equivalence between them.

py2006

Celeste Teeny Honeybee wrote: »

You can't really blame them for pointing it out when you literally made an equivalence between them.

I made a mistake....cancel my sitcom

one armed dwarf

py2006 wrote: »

I made a mistake....cancel my sitcom

If I made this tweet and it was visible to my employers I would have gotten fired from my job

silverharp

Pelvis wrote: »

She wasn't fired for commenting on someone's appearance, she was fired for being a racist.

Your inability to differentiate between the two is worrying.

why did they let a racist make a tv show?

Tony EH

She, probably, isn't truly a "racist" in the strictest term, not in the David Duke way anyway. If she was, her downfall would have happened far sooner. More than likely, she thrives on the shock value of controversial remarks. Her comedy has always been about that.

She just failed to take into account that those kind of mocking words have real consequences these days.

I'm not trying to defend Roseanne Barr here, I've never been a fan and I don't imagine that there's much of a difference in her on screen image and her off screen one, but she woefully msjudged her Twitter comments to a remarkable degree.

Very balanced, fair and calm commentary from approx 18:30 here from Joe Rogan. Just a few minutes long, but he does a nice job of trying to deflate the drama and humanise her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdFMBSPxfMw

I totally agree with his gist: she's exhausted, tired, suffering from mental illness, taking prescription medicine and drinking. She's making terrible choices. She was always borderline crazy, and was never controllable. She had wanted to appear on his podcast Friday but wasn't up for travelling and stress cancelled.

Note: I'm not coming close to excusing her words - never acceptable, ever.

LionelNashe

Cali_girl wrote: »

Very balanced, fair and calm commentary from approx 18:30 here from Joe Rogan. Just a few minutes long, but he does a nice job of trying to deflate the drama and humanise her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdFMBSPxfMw

I totally agree with his gist: she's exhausted, tired, suffering from mental illness, taking prescription medicine and drinking. She's making terrible choices. She was always borderline crazy, and was never controllable. She had wanted to appear on his podcast Friday but wasn't up for travelling and stress cancelled.

Note: I'm not coming close to excusing her words - never acceptable, ever.

She was institutionalised when she was a teenager, but does she currently claim to have a mental illness?

LionelNashe

LionelNashe wrote: »

She was institutionalised when she was a teenager, but does she currently claim to have a mental illness?

Wow - I didn't know that (not surprised).
Re second point don't know if she has this week - I think she's citing stress/exhaustion and that Joe Rogan as a friend/supporter is running the mental illness line. I do recall her speaking about her mental health struggles in several interviews over the years. Whether officially diagnosed or not I don't know. Pretty sure it was on previous interviews with Joe Rogan and Marc Maron (friendly, supportive fellow comedians) and/or on an interview Oprah did with her at her nut farm on Hawaii

I personally suspect she's certifiable but that she/her representatives are extremely careful about what is/has been officially noted on record for reason of insurability. High dose of crazy seems to run through many of the best comedians of the last 50 years...

LionelNashe

Cali_girl wrote: »

Wow - I didn't know that (not surprised).
Re second point don't know if she has this week - I think she's citing stress/exhaustion and that Joe Rogan as a friend/supporter is running the mental illness line. I do recall her speaking about her mental health struggles in several interviews over the years. Whether officially diagnosed or not I don't know. Pretty sure it was on previous interviews with Joe Rogan and Marc Maron (friendly, supportive fellow comedians) and/or on an interview Oprah did with her at her nut farm on Hawaii

I personally suspect she's certifiable but that she/her representatives are extremely careful about what is/has been officially noted on record for reason of insurability. High dose of crazy seems to run through many of the best comedians of the last 50 years...

I heard Joe Rogan say she had mental issues, but I assumed he was referring to the past, i.e. 40 years ago. The most relevant bit for me in his video was when he mentioned the tweet she posted about Susan Rice 5 years ago, that "Susan Rice is a man with big swinging ape balls." The internet is full of that kind of stuff about Michelle Obama as well, saying that she's actually a man and Barrack Obama is gay etc. It's all very poisonous. Roseanne shouldn't have been given the renewed show in the first place, in my opinion.

LionelNashe

LionelNashe wrote: »

I heard Joe Rogan say she had mental issues, but I assumed he was referring to the past, i.e. 40 years ago. The most relevant bit for me in his video was when he mentioned the tweet she posted about Susan Rice 5 years ago, that "Susan Rice is a man with big swinging ape balls." The internet is full of that kind of stuff about Michelle Obama as well, saying that she's actually a man and Barrack Obama is gay etc. It's all very poisonous. Roseanne shouldn't have been given the renewed show in the first place, in my opinion.

I didn't read that at all re 40 years ago to be honest. I assumed he meant her ongoing day to date state and frailties - they're not close but seemed to keep in touch - she's been on his show before.

I do agree completely with your last two points. It's all utterly poisonous and a waste of time and energy and is just adding to the awfulness of media and the reactive culture, esp in the US. And sad to say - she clearly wasn't "in the right place" to take on the demands of the renewal. I feel torn and weirdly complicit though as I was really enjoying it. I love her comedy voice, her show and the cast assembled around her.

Venom

Cali_girl wrote: »

I didn't read that at all re 40 years ago to be honest. I assumed he meant her ongoing day to date state and frailties - they're not close but seemed to keep in touch - she's been on his show before.

I do agree completely with your last two points. It's all utterly poisonous and a waste of time and energy and is just adding to the awfulness of media and the reactive culture, esp in the US. And sad to say - she clearly wasn't "in the right place" to take on the demands of the renewal. I feel torn and weirdly complicit though as I was really enjoying it. I love her comedy voice, her show and the cast assembled around her.

The "Rosanne's Nuts" reality show she did a few years ago about her running a macadamia nut farm, really high lighted that she can't deal with stress once it reaches a certain level without losing the plot altogether.

hotmail.com

The ratings dropped from 18 million in the first episode to just over 10 million in the season finale of the rebooted series. So at that rate, I'm not sure how long the show would have lasted anyway. Perhaps another 2 seasons?

py2006

hotmail.com wrote: »

The ratings dropped from 18 million in the first episode to just over 10 million in the season finale of the rebooted series. So at that rate, I'm not sure how long the show would have lasted anyway. Perhaps another 2 seasons?

Ratings are always high for a first episode. It takes a few to see were they are at. I think the last 3 were on the 10m mark which is really good these days.

The Will and Grace reboot first episode was about 10m and it's now between 3-4 m

NinetyTwoTeam

the reboot sucked anyway, they had totally twisted the show into this thing that they hoped would showcase 'the typical Trump voter'.

The original didn't have a political agenda like that, it was just about a working class family who liked to make snarky comebacks. It didn't have to try hard to be like an average American family, it seemed like one just by being itself.

i loved the original, used to watch it with my family as a kid. the new one lacked what the old one had it just wanted to be something else and Roseanne made a ridiculously bad decision.

I guess in the end it really did showcase the typical Trump voter: racist and dumb as rocks.

McLoughlin

Lads it wasn't a reboot.

I wonder how much it was cost the studio though a few actors will get paid but will the writers and other other staff get any compensation. If they do make a spin off they would have to pay Roseanne as its her characters her creation.

NinetyTwoTeam

McLoughlin wrote: »

Lads it wasn't a reboot.

I wonder how much it was cost the studio though a few actors will get paid but will the writers and other other staff get any compensation. If they do make a spin off they would have to pay Roseanne as its her characters her creation.

No, she didn't create the show's premise or characters dunno where you got that from. the production company owns it all, Matt Williams created it. they just picked her to star in it and named it after Roseanne Connor

silverharp

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

the reboot sucked anyway, they had totally twisted the show into this thing that they hoped would showcase 'the typical Trump voter'.

The original didn't have a political agenda like that, it was just about a working class family who liked to make snarky comebacks. It didn't have to try hard to be like an average American family, it seemed like one just by being itself.

i loved the original, used to watch it with my family as a kid. the new one lacked what the old one had it just wanted to be something else and Roseanne made a ridiculously bad decision.

I guess in the end it really did showcase the typical Trump voter: racist and dumb as rocks.

it will give the cast and writers a chance to move to canada :pac:

py2006

Tom Werner and Roseanne Barr have reached an agreement that will allow Werner Entertainment to produce a spinoff of the Roseanne series for ABC without Barr’s further creative or financial participation.

“I regret the circumstances that have caused me to be removed from Roseanne. I agreed to the settlement in order that 200 jobs of beloved cast and crew could be saved, and I wish the best for everyone involved” said Barr. Werner added: “We are grateful to have reached this agreement to keep our team working as we continue to explore stories of the Conner family.”

silverharp

It would be like the Simpsons without homer, what's the point?

py2006

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZwzIJiUe1A

py2006

THE CONNERS CONTINUE

“The Conners” (working title), a spinoff of the groundbreaking family comedy “Roseanne,” has been greenlit to series with an order of 10 episodes for fall 2018. After a sudden turn of events, the Conners are forced to face the daily struggles of life in Lanford in a way they never have before. This iconic family – Dan, Jackie, Darlene, Becky and D.J. – grapples with parenthood, dating, an unexpected pregnancy, financial pressures, aging and in-laws in working-class America. Through it all, the fights, the coupon cutting, the hand-me-downs, the breakdowns – with love, humor and perseverance, the family prevails.

The series, featuring John Goodman (“Dan”), Laurie Metcalf (“Jackie”), Sara Gilbert (“Darlene”), Lecy Goranson (“Becky”) and Michael Fishman (“D.J.”) as their beloved Conner characters, is set to air Tuesdays (8:00-8:30 p.m.). Additional cast members and a premiere date will be announced later.

Roseanne Barr will have no financial or creative involvement in the new series.

“The Conners’ stories demonstrate that families can always find common ground through conversation, laughter and love. The spinoff will continue to portray contemporary issues that are as relevant today as they were 30 years ago,” ABC shared in a statement.

In support of their new series, cast members John Goodman, Laurie Metcalf, Sara Gilbert, Lecy Goranson and Michael Fishman said, in a joint statement:

“We have received a tremendous amount of support from fans of our show, and it’s clear that these characters not only have a place in our hearts, but in the hearts and homes of our audience. We all came back last season because we wanted to tell stories about the challenges facing a working-class family today. We are so happy to have the opportunity to return with the cast and crew to continue to share those stories through love and laughter.”

Tom Werner will executive produce, along with Sara Gilbert, Bruce Helford, Dave Caplan, Bruce Rasmussen and Tony Hernandez. Bruce Helford, Dave Caplan and Bruce Rasmussen are also writers. The series is from Tom Werner and Werner Entertainment.

icdg

Pretty clear what the plan is there then - kill off Barr’s character off screen and continue the series without her. Roseanne without Roseanne basically.

py2006

icdg wrote: »

Pretty clear what the plan is there then - kill off Barr’s character off screen and continue the series without her. Roseanne without Roseanne basically.

I can see a really powerful first episode dealing with the death of Roseanne. The final scene before the end credits with Dan sitting alone in the kitchen on the verge of tears.

Or perhaps, the death will be months ago and they've moved on somewhat barely mentioning her. Actually, they probably won't mention the R word at all.

They could also have her gone to stay with her mother or in hospital and in a season or two (when she is all forgiven) make a return cameo. unlikely.

McLoughlin

I can't really recall a TV show that went on after the loss of the title main character well Taggart I suppose but a USA sitcom I can't think of any.

Penn

Roseanne has said in an interview that she was given the chance to save the show and stay on it if she deleted her Twitter account.

https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Culture/roseanne-barr-tearfully-apologizes-racist-tweet-ive-made/story?id=56126034

The comedian revealed during the interview that ABC asked her to leave Twitter after the incident if they were to keep working with her and she refused. She also repeated a claim that she was on sleep medication Ambien when she fired off the tweet.

All she had to do was delete her Twitter account... and she chose not to. As much of a case of "It's her own fault" as it was before, it's doubly-so now.

py2006

McLoughlin wrote: »

I can't really recall a TV show that went on after the loss of the title main character well Taggart I suppose but a USA sitcom I can't think of any.

Two and Half men, albeit not for long.

Bandana boy

McLoughlin wrote: »

I can't really recall a TV show that went on after the loss of the title main character well Taggart I suppose but a USA sitcom I can't think of any.

Inspector Morse became Lewis
Two and a half men lost Charlie Sheen not the same but close