Jump to content

Roseanne


TahoeHorn

Recommended Posts

Guest Lobo

I wonder how many liberal women just lost their jobs at ABC because of Roseanne getting canceled.  Probably in the dozens, maybe a hundred or more when you factor outside of crew, like marketing, PR, HR, travel/booking, et. al.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gecko said:

 

 

 

 

You know those giant novelty scissors they use to cut a ribbon at an opening ceremony?  You should take a pair of those and this tweet and run like the wind.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/roseanne-barr-i-begged-abc-not-to-cancel-the-show-w520978

 

Quote

Roseanne Barr continued to address the aftermath of her recent racist tweet that prompted the cancellation of Roseanne, writing Thursday on Twitter that she "begged" Disney-ABC Television Group President Ben Sherwood not to pull the plug on the series. 

"I begged Ben Sherwood at ABC 2 let me apologize & make amends," the comedian said in a since-deleted tweet, The Hollywood Reporter notes. "I begged them not to cancel the show. I told them I was willing to do anything & asked 4 help in making things right. I'd worked doing publicity4 them 4free for weeks, traveling, thru bronchitis. I begged4 ppls jobs."

Barr continued by recalling Sherwood's outraged response. "He said: what were you thinking when you did this? I said: I thought she was white, she looks like my family! He scoffed & said: "what u have done is egregious, and unforgivable.' I begged 4 my crews jobs. Will I ever recover from this pain? omg."

ABC swiftly canceled the highly popular revival of Barr's classic sitcom on Tuesday following a widespread backlash to the actress's damning tweet from that same day, in which she compared Barack Obama's former White House adviser Valerie Jarrett – who is African-American – to an ape ("muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj"). Barr's agency, ICM Partners, also dropped her as a client, and Viacom announced plans to pull reruns of the original Roseanne from three TV channels: Paramount Network, TV Land and CMT.

Barr originally promised to leave Twitter after the controversy but returned hours later for another tweet spree, blaming her racist post on the insomnia medication Ambien and apologizing directly to Jarrett. In her round of Thursday tweets, the comic wrote that she was worried about the reaction of her young co-star Jayden Rey. "The saddest part of all is 4 Jayden Rey on the show whom I grew2 love so much & am so ashamed of myself that she would ever think I do not love her bc she is African American," she added in another since-deleted message. "It's the most gawd awful painful thing. I can't let myself cave in tho."

In tweets from late Tuesday and Wednesday morning, Barr floated the idea that ABC nixed Roseanne due to a "threatened boycott of the show's advertisers." 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2018 at 9:55 AM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

  One sad element for Roseanne is that she does appear to have some form of mental illness or substance addiction.  If not both.   I recall her days married to Tom Arnold that she came across as bi-polar:  manic one second, depressed the next.    I hope anyone like that gets the help they need.

Yes, it's called an eating disorder.  Fuck her. 

Edited by ChiTownDoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.tmz.com/2018/06/01/abc-talking-roseanne-reboot-centered-sara-gilbert-character/

 

Quote

"Roseanne" may be on the verge of rising from the dead with a second reboot, but this time centered around Sara Gilbert's character ... TMZ has learned.

Sources familiar with the situation tell TMZ ... the powers that be at ABC are exploring the possibility of re-branding the show and focusing on the character Darlene instead of Roseanne.

We're told Sara's been calling cast members to gauge their interest in the event ABC gives the reboot the green light. We're told John Goodman is "very interested."

Our sources say Tom Werner, who produced "Roseanne" through his company Carsey-Werner, is involved in the effort to reboot the show around Sara.

What's more ... ABC is desperately trying to salvage the jobs of those who were affected by its swift decision to cancel the show earlier this week ... especially for the writers and crew.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

↑ ↑ The only problem with that is that Roseanne is co-creater and Executive Producer of the show, and she would have to approve the new show.

The only way around it is to launch a show that's totally not related to the original, and "by coincidence" cast many of the same actors.

I've read a little bit about this, and there's no way to cobble it together in time for the fall, they've been talking about maybe a mid-season premiere (Jan-March) but it's less than 50/50.  

Whatever they do, chances are (based on historical spinoffs) about 90% it won't take.

Edited by phdhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

Well there's her problem.  She should have been begging Susan Rice's husband. 

I think maybe Roseanne thought "maybe I don't want the hassle & grind of this show everyday"... And thus used her twitter rant as a reason to be fired...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2018 at 10:53 PM, Thetexashammer said:

It's not about her, it's about you. Same goes for Samantha Bee.

page 10. when the dust settles the loons ^ come on board to make irrationality the norm

 

Edited by staboner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, kopp0e said:

I think maybe Roseanne thought "maybe I don't want the hassle & grind of this show everyday"... And thus used her twitter rant as a reason to be fired...

She's been tweeting and saying weird shit for years. It was only a matter of time before this happened. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Skyline said:

She's been tweeting and saying weird shit for years. It was only a matter of time before this happened. 

So she just needed to hire someone to check over her tweets it seems, which is weird as I don't have that problem...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, kopp0e said:

So she just needed to hire someone to check over her tweets it seems, which is weird as I don't have that problem...

I mean, saying weird shit is too close to her core. Similarly, many people have tried to get Donald Trump to just stop tweeting and maybe get someone to edit his tweets but has that ever worked? Sooner or later, Roseanne was going to break free. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Skyline said:

I mean, saying weird shit is too close to her core. Similarly, many people have tried to get Donald Trump to just stop tweeting and maybe get someone to edit his tweets but has that ever worked? Sooner or later, Roseanne was going to break free. 

Here was the thoughts of Roseanne as she hit send on twitter...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Lol.  Roseanne and half the celebrities in America have that problem.  

Agreed, I'm not sure if regular Americans realize how blessed we are to have real problems in life, as oppose to having twitter wars that cost us a well paying job..!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, phdhorn said:

↑ ↑ The only problem with that is that Roseanne is co-creater and Executive Producer of the show, and she would have to approve the new show.

The only way around it is to launch a show that's totally not related to the original, and "by coincidence" cast many of the same actors.

I've read a little bit about this, and there's no way to cobble it together in time for the fall, they've been talking about maybe a mid-season premiere (Jan-March) but it's less than 50/50.  

Whatever they do, chances are (based on historical spinoffs) about 90% it won't take.

The ownership of a show is not that simple in most cases. I don't think Gilbert would be pursuing this if Roseanne could just kill it. My guess is that Roseanne has approved the effort or her approval is not necessary. Roseanne would indeed make money on the spinoff as a creator of the original series. The network, at least formerly, would own the rights to a show for two broadcasts. I'm guessing that the network would also have rights to first refusal on spinoffs. 

A quick google check produced this from an entertainment lawyer.

Quote

Most shows I’ve worked on are the result of some producer’s unique vision, and the show as we knew it simply wouldn’t exist without them. But no matter how influential that person was, the show never belonged to them. The copyright to most filmed media is owned by the production company, the distributor, studio, or network, or some combination thereof. In nearly every case, cast and crewmembers hired to bring a show to life are independent contractors who forfeit their copyright interests in the work. In exchange, they get financial remuneration, exposure, and the opportunity to build their portfolios. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, in this case, she's co-creator legally. That's even more powerful than a producer. Actually, it's pretty clear, they would have to have her approval unless they completly retooled the show until it had absolutely nothing to do with the original show, and even then, she could sue for copyright infringement if she felt like it or sensed profiting off of her creative ideas (needless to say, the show was born out of her stand-up comic routines). It will not be easy. But it is possible. However, it's almost a given that the primary audience the show appeals to would probably not care for a completely different show, even with the same actors, as history clearly has shown by the percentages.

 Roseanne cast members' fates are still up in the air. Entertainment Weekly is now reporting that insiders connected to the show have been in discussions about whether ABC could construct a new show around John Goodman, Laurie Metcalf, and friends. The decision would be a good financial move: Carsey-Werner, the company that produces Roseanne, is still responsible for the contracts that were optioned from the cast. ABC, who ordered another season, is responsible for cancellation fees. In short, there's a lot of money on the table.

The problem with all of that is Roseanne is co-created by Roseanne Barr. Using those characters and stories will still benefit her financially, reversing the stance ABC president Channing Dungey has taken. The only way around that is a new show, which could potentially scramble the world of Roseanne in a way that's different enough from the original series that it's not copyright infringement.

https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a20876899/abc-roseanne-without-roseanne-barr/

Edited by phdhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, phdhorn said:

No, in this case, she's co-creator legally. That's even more powerful than a producer. Actually, it's pretty clear, they would have to have her approval unless they completly retooled the show until it had absolutely nothing to do with the original show, and even then, she could sue for copyright infringement if she felt like it or sensed profiting off of her creative ideas (needless to say, the show was born out of her stand-up comic routines). It will not be easy. But it is possible. However, it's almost a given that the primary audience the show appeals to would probably not care for a completely different show, even with the same actors, as history clearly has shown by the percentages.

 Roseanne cast members' fates are still up in the air. Entertainment Weekly is now reporting that insiders connected to the show have been in discussions about whether ABC could construct a new show around John Goodman, Laurie Metcalf, and friends. The decision would be a good financial move: Carsey-Werner, the company that produces Roseanne, is still responsible for the contracts that were optioned from the cast. ABC, who ordered another season, is responsible for cancellation fees. In short, there's a lot of money on the table.

The problem with all of that is Roseanne is co-created by Roseanne Barr. Using those characters and stories will still benefit her financially, reversing the stance ABC president Channing Dungey has taken. The only way around that is a new show, which could potentially scramble the world of Roseanne in a way that's different enough from the original series that it's not copyright infringement.

https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a20876899/abc-roseanne-without-roseanne-barr/

So it's not as simple as making a "spin off" as when Lisa Huxtable was cast off the Cosby Show & placed in "A Different World", or could that be part of the crux of the new show..?

I always seem to forget if it's due to the voodoo sex scene with Mickey Rourke in a B movie, or the fact that she was pregnant, or was that why she was only on that show 1 year..? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kopp0e said:

So it's not as simple as making a "spin off" as when Lisa Huxtable was cast off the Cosby Show & placed in "A Different World", or could that be part of the crux of the new show..?

I always seem to forget if it's due to the voodoo sex scene with Mickey Rourke in a B movie, or the fact that she was pregnant, or was that why she was only on that show 1 year..? 

I think it came about because, at first Cosby wanted to spin off a show that wasn't as wholesome as the Cosby Show; he wanted to gear the show to a younger audience and bring in more social issues (race, AIDS, homosexuality, etc.).  There wasn't anything "wrong" in transferring Bonet to the new show; on the contrary, it was a promotion of sorts as she proved to be a popular role model with young girls.  So they put her in the first season.  Then after that season's shooting, she announced that she and Lenny Kravitz were going to have a baby.  The show was revamped for the 2nd season to be more "realistic" in portraying young black college students; as part of this they wanted Bonet to be an unwed mother college student.  Cosby liked the idea of the unwed mother, but not "Denise Huxtable" as it would counteract against the wholesome image of the Cosby Show, and especially "good girl" Denise.   He felt it would meet with viewer backlash and based on some audience polling, he apparently had at least some grounds for it. So they decided to take her back to Cosby to appear here and there, though not every week.  From what I read, Bonet didn't really complain about being replaced on the spinoff, as she was getting tired of playing "goody girl" and  wanted to expand her acting, but she was lukewarm to going back to playing Denise for that reason as well.  In the end, it was apparently a fairly amicable parting.

But therein's the point... EVERYTHING went thought Cosby.  He controlled pretty much every angle (or at least had to agree with much of it) as the creator of the series.  If he didn't approve, it either wasn't done or was altered, but with his blessing.

Roseanne could even conceivably approve a spinoff as a goodwill gesture to the actors and other show staff (though judging by the tweets between her and Sara Gilbert, I wouldn't bet the farm on a lot of it).  But ABC is either going to have to pay her royalties if they try to carry on the show (something that the guy who fired her is adamant about not happening) or try and retool it so much it's unrecognizable.  Suffice it to say it's murky in court at best if they use entirely the same cast (minus her) and try to structure stories around a family, but they can try.

But like I said, the chances of any new show even drawing 1/10th of the popularity of the Roseanne reboot are slim.  This was ABC's first #1 show in 24 years (!!!) and it definitely won't achieve that level (her audience comes from all sides of the political spectrum, and the new show would almost certainly lose conservatives, especially if she makes a stink).  But you never know; the problem is that often, the best comedies come directly out of the star's standuip act for ideas; to just try and whip up scenarios is very tough to do.

In any event, nothing is going to be even attempted for at least a year.  By that time, the writers, sound guys, cameramen, etc. will probably have moved onto work; they'd probably just hire new people for some of the slots.  

ABC Prez Dungey made his stand and decision to fire her.  That's all within his and his network's authority, of course, and like any private venture, he has the right to do what he thinks best.  But when you can your #1 network star, it's going to be a rough ride to duplicate that; seeing as it's been almost 25 years since ABC was even in the ballgame, it's a costly axing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

I think it came about because, at first Cosby wanted to spin off a show that wasn't as wholesome as the Cosby Show; he wanted to gear the show to a younger audience and bring in more social issues (race, AIDS, homosexuality, etc.).  There wasn't anything "wrong" in transferring Bonet to the new show; on the contrary, it was a promotion of sorts as she proved to be a popular role model with young girls.  So they put her in the first season.  Then after that season's shooting, she announced that she and Lenny Kravitz were going to have a baby.  The show was revamped for the 2nd season to be more "realistic" in portraying young black college students; as part of this they wanted Bonet to be an unwed mother college student.  Cosby liked the idea of the unwed mother, but not "Denise Huxtable" as it would counteract against the wholesome image of the Cosby Show, and especially "good girl" Denise.   He felt it would meet with viewer backlash and based on some audience polling, he apparently had at least some grounds for it. So they decided to take her back to Cosby to appear here and there, though not every week.  From what I read, Bonet didn't really complain about being replaced on the spinoff, as she was getting tired of playing "goody girl" and  wanted to expand her acting, but she was lukewarm to going back to playing Denise for that reason as well.  In the end, it was apparently a fairly amicable parting.

But therein's the point... EVERYTHING went thought Cosby.  He controlled pretty much every angle (or at least had to agree with much of it) as the creator of the series.  If he didn't approve, it either wasn't done or was altered, but with his blessing.

Roseanne could even conceivably approve a spinoff as a goodwill gesture to the actors and other show staff (though judging by the tweets between her and Sara Gilbert, I wouldn't bet the farm on a lot of it).  But ABC is either going to have to pay her royalties if they try to carry on the show (something that the guy who fired her is adamant about not happening) or try and retool it so much it's unrecognizable.  Suffice it to say it's murky in court at best if they use entirely the same cast (minus her) and try to structure stories around a family, but they can try.

But like I said, the chances of any new show even drawing 1/10th of the popularity of the Roseanne reboot are slim.  This was ABC's first #1 show in 24 years (!!!) and it definitely won't achieve that level (her audience comes from all sides of the political spectrum, and the new show would almost certainly lose conservatives, especially if she makes a stink).  But you never know; the problem is that often, the best comedies come directly out of the star's standuip act for ideas; to just try and whip up scenarios is very tough to do.

In any event, nothing is going to be even attempted for at least a year.  By that time, the writers, sound guys, cameramen, etc. will probably have moved onto work; they'd probably just hire new people for some of the slots.  

ABC Prez Dungey made his stand and decision to fire her.  That's all within his and his network's authority, of course, and like any private venture, he has the right to do what he thinks best.  But when you can your #1 network star, it's going to be a rough ride to duplicate that; seeing as it's been almost 25 years since ABC was even in the ballgame, it's a costly axing.

Yeah, I agree with your analysis as replacing Roseanne, not only the star of the show, but the name of the show will be far harder than just retooling & naming the show "Dan"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, phdhorn said:

No, in this case, she's co-creator legally. That's even more powerful than a producer. Actually, it's pretty clear, they would have to have her approval unless they completly retooled the show until it had absolutely nothing to do with the original show, and even then, she could sue for copyright infringement if she felt like it or sensed profiting off of her creative ideas (needless to say, the show was born out of her stand-up comic routines). It will not be easy. But it is possible. However, it's almost a given that the primary audience the show appeals to would probably not care for a completely different show, even with the same actors, as history clearly has shown by the percentages.

 Roseanne cast members' fates are still up in the air. Entertainment Weekly is now reporting that insiders connected to the show have been in discussions about whether ABC could construct a new show around John Goodman, Laurie Metcalf, and friends. The decision would be a good financial move: Carsey-Werner, the company that produces Roseanne, is still responsible for the contracts that were optioned from the cast. ABC, who ordered another season, is responsible for cancellation fees. In short, there's a lot of money on the table.

The problem with all of that is Roseanne is co-created by Roseanne Barr. Using those characters and stories will still benefit her financially, reversing the stance ABC president Channing Dungey has taken. The only way around that is a new show, which could potentially scramble the world of Roseanne in a way that's different enough from the original series that it's not copyright infringement.

https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a20876899/abc-roseanne-without-roseanne-barr/

But if she stands in the way, couldn't they countersue on grounds that is interfering with their earning a living

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, chainsaw said:

Am I correct in understanding that ABC will have dead air in place of Roseanne,

As far as ratings are concerned, probably.
 

Quote

and that those jobs will not be coming back in the form of a new show?

Nope.  They're are a lot of old pros writing and doing behind the scenes stuff.  They'll simply get new employment as they'll be in demand.  Any new shows will probably hire from scratch.

This from Variety, which excels at reporting this kind of stuff:
 

Quote

MAY 30, 2018 4:43PM PT

Could ‘Roseanne’ Continue Without Roseanne Barr? It’s a Long Shot

As the shock wore off, questions about the future of “Roseanne” came into focus. Was Tuesday’s stunning cancellation the true end of the sitcom reboot, or is there a possibility of the show carrying on in a new incarnation without its titular star?

Multiple sources close to the situation say that there have been extremely preliminary discussions among key players — including executive producer Tom Werner, co-star and EP Sara Gilbert, and showrunner/EP Bruce Helford — about options for keeping the ensemble together in some form without Roseanne Barr. Barr sent the show into a death spiral on Tuesday after posting a racist tweet late Monday night that sparked outrage via social media, so much so that ABC pulled the plug on its most-watched program.

A source said that Gilbert and Werner and Helford are preparing to sit down with ABCexecs as soon as Friday to discuss options for the future of the series. One big problem to overcome is the fact that Barr has a significant financial interest in the series, and there is concern that a new iteration that would benefit her financially would be a non-starter for everyone involved.

Sources cautioned that Werner, Gilbert, and Helford are realistic about the long odds against keeping the show going without Barr. The hurdles are significant to keeping key cast members on board, plus the challenge of persuading ABC or another network to take a gamble on a show without the star that has always been at its center. Sources said there were no discussions with ABC regarding a possible new path given the drama inherent in the cancellation that came within hours of Barr’s tweet equating former Obama administration advisor Valerie Jarrett with an ape. Barr subsequently apologized, but ABC and Disney brass came to the conclusion that they had no choice but to sever ties in light of her offensive statement, which came on the heels of other questionable comments made by Barr via social media.

Nonetheless, a hit show is a rare commodity. Werner and Gilbert were the driving forces in making the reboot happen in the first place. Werner is a partner in the Carsey-Werner Co., which produced the original “Roseanne” series that ran from 1988-1997 on ABC. Gilbert grew up as an actress on the show and by all accounts was integral in breathing new life into the Conner clan. As such, Werner, Gilbert, and Helford (also an alum of the original series) are heavily invested in the revival.

The pain of the cancellation was magnified by the fact that the revival had been wildly successful. It premiered in March to 18 million-plus viewers, and maintained a healthy audience throughout its nine-episode run. In an ironic twist of fate, the show’s writing staff was just assembling on the CBS Studio Center lot in Studio City, Calif., on Tuesday morning to begin work on Season 2 when news of ABC’s cancellation decision came down. “Roseanne” settled
there because Gilbert is a co-host of the CBS daytime panel show “The Talk,” which also tapes on the lot.

Discussions about a possible future for the show were also complicated by Werner being in London on Tuesday. Co-star John Goodman, who would be crucial to any revamped series, is also away with his family and has not been in communication with the “Roseanne” team. But a source close to the actors said he was greatly upset by the cancellation as he had enjoyed revisiting his iconic role as Dan Conner as well as the working atmosphere on the show. “Roseanne” in its original run was known for drama and blow-ups behind the scenes. This time around, by many accounts, production ran much smoother. Sources credited the combination of Werner, Gilbert, and Helford for keeping everyone — especially the notoriously volatile Barr — on an even keel and focused on the work at hand.

Another hurdle to keeping the show going in a new form is the speed with which decisions need to be made. Actors would need some certainty that the show has a future in order to keep their schedules open, particularly for an in-demand thesp like Laurie Metcalf. The same is true for the show’s writing staff, which was a strong lineup of sitcom veterans. To make the show economically feasible and use existing sets, producers would need to have a basic timetable for production within a month or so, industry sources said.

One factor that could benefit a resurrection effort is the bill ABC and Carsey-Werner are facing if they do shut down the show for good. Key actors are said to have a minimum 10-episode guarantee for Season 2, which had an initial order of 13 episodes. The highest echelon of writers and producers also have some minimum episodic guarantees. The fact that Carsey-Werner and ABC will have to write those checks regardless could be the impetus for trying to forge ahead, even in less than ideal conditions.

Sources said the writing staff did not assemble Wednesday at CBS Studio Center. “Everyone is still shell-shocked,” a source said.

Perhaps the biggest question hanging over the effort to soldier on is whether viewers will still tune in for a show about the Conner family without the larger-than-life personality of Barr as its comedic engine. But there are numerous logistical and financial hurdles to clear before writers and producers can even begin to think about tackling that challenge.

https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/roseanne-without-roseanne-barr-sara-gilbert-1202825647/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

A Roseanne reboot without Roseanne? Sounds like a winner. 

It might work if everyone would pretend that Sara Gilbert has charisma or any appeal at all beyond sarcastic mumbling.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...