Roseanne, fired over racist tweet

[GordonH]

Wondering has any sitcom survived after the name sake has been eliminated (I can't think of any).

Now their have been spinoffs that have done okay.
as examples:
All in the Family with... The Jeffersons (11 years) (was others Maude etc.. etc)
Cheers with... Frasier (11 years)
M.A.S.H with... Trapper John, M.D. (7 years) of course this was not a sitcom
Mary Tyler Moore with... Rhoda (5 years)... & Lou Grant (5 years) of course this was not a sitcom... Phyllis did not last very long

[dle]

Wondering has any sitcom survived after the name sake has been eliminated (I can't think of any).

Now their have been spinoffs that have done okay.
as examples:
All in the Family with... The Jeffersons (11 years) (was others Maude etc.. etc)
Cheers with... Frasier (11 years)
M.A.S.H with... Trapper John, M.D. (7 years) of course this was not a sitcom
Mary Tyler Moore with... Rhoda (5 years)... & Lou Grant (5 years) of course this was not a sitcom... Phyllis did not last very long

My thought was 2 and a Half Men stayed on with a tweaked script after Charlie went kabonkers and they brought in Ashton but I never considered any others. It stayed on for a few seasons and for me it wasn't AS funny without Charlie but it kept the actors working and it wasn't a total dud so I figured maybe it could be done with Roseanne too. Again, one actor ruins the whole kaboodle for the others. At least Chuck Lorre & I think it was CBS gave it a try and tweaked the script so it's not unheard of.

And I still can't fathom how Donald Trump can still be President and not get turfed after all the same kind of crap rolls out on his twitter feed and his own mouth on live TV constantly! I mean he sets the bar so low you have to dig it out of the ground and we still have to put up with him.

[dle]

This is more like it....hope they figure it out!

Article (in part) on Yahoo news this afternoon headlines:
https://qz.com/1295509/abc-is-consideri ... yptr=yahoo

THE RE-REBOOT
ABC is considering rebooting “Roseanne” without Roseanne—but there’s one big hurdle

Less than a week after ABC was forced to cancel Roseanne after its titular star, Roseanne Barr, went on a racist Twitter tirade, the network is reportedly interested in continuing the sitcom without her.

The show’s producers are meeting with ABC and Disney executives on Monday (June 4) to pitch a new direction for the series in the wake of its cancellation, Deadline reported. The effort is being spearheaded by actress Sara Gilbert, who plays Darlene, the daughter of Barr’s character. TMZ reported that a new version of Roseanne would likely center on Darlene.

But now Gilbert and the show’s producers are trying to figure out a way to keep everyone employed. There remains one massive obstacle: Barr maintains an ownership stake in the series.

ABC has reportedly stipulated that the only way for the show to move forward is if Barr cannot benefit financially from it, according to the Hollywood Reporter. The network may attempt a buyout, but if they move forward without her, they could face legal action.

[TylerM4]

Firstly, where did I EVER mention replacing Roseanne.

So, Rosanne should be fired - the show itself shouldn't be cancelled.

So you are saying that the writers should somehow write out the main character completely? I'm sorry, but that's a completely different show if they do. In which case - you still cancel the original.

[kelownman]

It would appear that Roseanne, the show, wont be an issue if and when a reboot show takes it place. The reboot show will be Sara Gilbert's character, Darlene, as the main character and the name of the show will be Darlene.

So the producers avoid using Roseanne, who, apparently, has some kind of ownership or something like that to the show name. If they change the show name to Darlene, Roseanne gets nothing....nada which is what the ABC execs want above all else.

https://people.com/tv/roseanne-cancella ... anne-barr/
https://consequenceofsound.net/2018/06/ ... ne-reboot/

[GordonH]

Wondering has any sitcom survived after the name sake has been eliminated (I can't think of any).

Now their have been spinoffs that have done okay.
as examples:
All in the Family with... The Jeffersons (11 years) (was others Maude etc.. etc)
Cheers with... Frasier (11 years)
M.A.S.H with... Trapper John, M.D. (7 years) of course this was not a sitcom
Mary Tyler Moore with... Rhoda (5 years)... & Lou Grant (5 years) of course this was not a sitcom... Phyllis did not last very long

My thought was 2 and a Half Men stayed on with a tweaked script after Charlie went kabonkers and they brought in Ashton but I never considered any others. It stayed on for a few seasons and for me it wasn't AS funny without Charlie but it kept the actors working and it wasn't a total dud so I figured maybe it could be done with Roseanne too. Again, one actor ruins the whole kaboodle for the others. At least Chuck Lorre & I think it was CBS gave it a try and tweaked the script so it's not unheard of.

And I still can't fathom how Donald Trump can still be President and not get turfed after all the same kind of crap rolls out on his twitter feed and his own mouth on live TV constantly! I mean he sets the bar so low you have to dig it out of the ground and we still have to put up with him.

Well that's actually different since that show was not named after the leading character... i.e Charlie plus 1 & half men.

[oneh2obabe]

So the producers avoid using Roseanne, who, apparently, has some kind of ownership or something like that to the show name. If they change the show name to Darlene, Roseanne gets nothing....nada which is what the ABC execs want above all else.

Roseanne created the Roseanne character meaning she'd benefit financially if they kept the name even though the character wouldn't be part of the show.

[dle]

Firstly, where did I EVER mention replacing Roseanne.

So, Rosanne should be fired - the show itself shouldn't be cancelled.

So you are saying that the writers should somehow write out the main character completely? I'm sorry, but that's a completely different show if they do. In which case - you still cancel the original.

They pretty much did it with Two and a Half Men...kept the name, ousted Charlie, brought in Ashton and carried on. The difference between that show and Roseanne is it wasn't named after the pivotal character and called "Charlie". So yes, I agree with you in that in this instance they maybe wouldn't retain the name "Roseanne" anymore for trademark reasons or others, but they don't have to cancel the show - they write her out and carry on like they did in Two and a Half Men.

[Poindexter]

^^ I hear Paula Dean is available.

[mexi cali]

BUT....should the whole "Walmart" store be shut down over that ONE employees' actions? No, just the guilty party would be fired. So, Rosanne should be fired - the show itself shouldn't be cancelled. If the writers can't tweak it to make a go, then it fails. The other actors should be given a chance to make the show a go if they so choose.

A little tougher here. The show is called "Roseanne".

[Bsuds]

In a couple of weeks no one will care!

I don't much care now.

[TylerM4]

They pretty much did it with Two and a Half Men...kept the name, ousted Charlie, brought in Ashton and carried on. The difference between that show and Roseanne is it wasn't named after the pivotal character and called "Charlie". So yes, I agree with you in that in this instance they maybe wouldn't retain the name "Roseanne" anymore for trademark reasons or others, but they don't have to cancel the show - they write her out and carry on like they did in Two and a Half Men.

As a few have pointed out, it's simply not possible to do here what they did with 2.5 Men. The show is called "Rosanne" it cannot continue without her. A spinoff is not "carrying on" it's a new show. Legally as part of her contract it must have a new name with a new pretense...the whole 9 yards. It a NEW SHOW.