2 hours ago, dragonflies said:

Should I change the name of this thread to "The Connors" or should we start a separate thread just for that?

My vote goes is for a separate thread.  Let's have a clean slate.

18 minutes ago, juppiter said:

I really wish they had just let this die. She is the one who fought to make it the classic it was. I understand that they couldn't go on with her, but they really shouldn't have gone on at all.

 

 

It's just like The Hogan Family. It wasn't the same without Valarie Harper in it. The cast was going to get paid for the season anyways but at least the crew has a job too. The only thing I noticed is that they cut the episode count to just 10.

Roseanne's ensemble is several cuts above anything on The Hogan Family.

I think it was cut down to 10 because it is essence a new show.. so they're testing the waters to see if there is any interest.  Compared to what the majority of the ABC sitcoms are getting ratings wise (some barely above 5 mil), this show would have to get 3 million or less to be cancelled.

It was probably cut down because production is beginning a bit later than it would've had the original still gone on. 

Conflicted about this news, because although I'm happy the rest of the cast will be getting their paycheck it still irks me Roseanne will still profit from this.

 

11 hours ago, xtr said:

Though, I don't know how they would explain her absence if she didn't die, especially with the rest of the cast returning.

 

Well, they could say she ran off with David Duke.

11 hours ago, dragonflies said:

Should I change the name of this thread to "The Connors" or should we start a separate thread just for that?

 

We're taking up enough bandwidth, lol.  I say just change the name.

11 hours ago, Vee said:

I doubt it'll have the ratings or staying power of the last season, but I am glad this cast and that creative team get a chance to continue. I'll be there.

 

Same.

8 hours ago, Vee said:

Roseanne's ensemble is several cuts above anything on The Hogan Family.

 

Just the same, I'd LOVE it if they were to cast Edie McClurg as the family's annoying, new neighbor.

I'm still not going anywhere near this show. ABC wanted to cater to Trumpers so I consider this fruit of the poisonous tree. But, honestly, even without all this controversy, I just don't do these reboots. I think the last reboot I watched was Gilmore Girls and that was disappointing. I'm just not here for bringing back shows that had long healthy runs and in some cases, including Roseanne, went on at least a season or two too long. Better to look at shows that only had one or two seasons but managed to attract a decent fanbase but may simply not have been at the right moment. Better yet look at some of the shows that were doing well in 2007 but fell prey to the Writers Strike. There were a couple of shows I was loving then but the strike happened before they could hit their stride.

1 hour ago, CassieFan said:

Conflicted about this news, because although I'm happy the rest of the cast will be getting their paycheck it still irks me Roseanne will still profit from this.

She is not. She got a payout cause she created the characters but will not get any more money

1 hour ago, marceline said:

I'm still not going anywhere near this show. ABC wanted to cater to Trumpers so I consider this fruit of the poisonous tree.

 

I won't either.  However, I remain happy that the rest of the cast -- and more importantly, the crew -- will remain employed for awhile; and that, best of all, Roseanne herself is off mah damn TV screen (for now).

I think it's a great move, and it's good for the cast and crew. Listen, we may only get one season out of this and that's fine. It fulfills what the cast and especially the crew were counting on. The crew would've been without work this year, as new shows' crews were already set up & ready to go. 

 

I like the name change to "The Conners" to focus on its ensemble cast, and I think it's wonderful that *everyone* is back on board, even Laurie Metcalf, who's getting roles left and right and winning awards and accolades along the way.  If "The Conners" is awful, I can just pretend this past May's finale was the family's last hurrah in my mind. We all do it, right? I certainly don't 'count' the Melrose Place 2009 revival as a true continuation of the original's story. 

 

Side note: I would hope the "Roseanne" actors would submit themselves for Emmy consideration. Whether ABC promotes it or not, people like Sara Gilbert have a great shot at a nomination, as she did stellar work. 

 

And finally, @Soapsuds I maintain my position that I thought "The Hogan Family" was *better* than "Valerie"!   That show is another example of 80's/90's shows where the series got better once the kids got older by the 3rd or 4th season. 

 

P.S. I wouldn't mind a Roseanne / The Conners thread continuing on right here. 

 

 

A whole new theme music and opening will have to be done.

I've got something in common with John Goodman we both went to Missouri State University but not at same time.

An insightful piece on where a Darlene-focused show could go in the aftermath of Roseanne Conner’s death:

http://www.vulture.com/2018/06/roseanne-spinoff-imagining-the-conners.html