About Roseanneless "Roseanne" and persons "of colors."

I'm trying to read "How ABC changed ‘Roseanne’ into ‘The Conners’ and kept the status quo/The frustrating reality of the entertainment industry" by Monica Castillo at The Lily (which is a woman-oriented offshoot of The Washington Post).

Castillo objects to the new version of the show — "Roseanne" without Roseanne — because the actors and writers employed on the old show could have been used to produce a completely new show. Castillo then gives us this paragraph (as if it supports the proposition that a completely new show should be devised to keep the the old show's people employed):

Yesterday, the Directors Guild of America published their diversity figures for movie directors, revealing a shocking. but not entirely surprising statistic: There were fewer directors of colors helming movies last year than in 2013....

Directors of colors? Is that how we talk now? Is there some idea that because "directors" is plural that you should also pluralize "color"? That's not the grammar rule I was taught in high school by an English teacher who justified the rule by maintaining that it is manifestly ridiculous to say to a group of people "use your heads" (because it creates the image of individuals with more than one head).

Maybe the plural seemed to express Castillo's interest in colors other than black (and "directors of color" seemed to signify only black directors). But maybe it's just a typo. Later in the column, I do see "directors of color."

Anyway — beyond that strange phrase — I don't see what the interest in employing more nonwhite directors has to do with whether John Goodman, Sara Gilbert, et al., do a completely new show or play the familiar roles of Dan and Darlene Conner.

That question has to do with what will draw an audience. I wonder how the new show will be promoted. The message will be:

Hey, don't you want to watch "Roseanne" without Roseanne? You loved "Roseanne" so much that you'll love it without Roseanne, who had to go because... well, you know, for that reason we don't what to talk about anymore, and we hope that you remember so you'll know why this is "Roseanne" without Roseanne, but you won't want to reopen the question why she had to be made a total outcast from all polite society.

Putting that in writing, I'm thinking I'd be interested in a new show, starring Roseanne Barr, about the greatest woman in the history of television, who Ambien-tweeted a stupid joke that everyone took to be racist and who got kicked out of her own TV home and who is now ranting and raving — watching "Roseanne" without Roseanne on the TV in her home on a nutty macadamia farm in Hawaii.

"ABC's 'Roseanne' Spinoff Officially a Go — Without Roseanne Barr."

Hollywood Reporter reports.

ABC stressed in its announcement Thursday that former star Barr will have no financial or creative involvement in the new series....

"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,” Barr said in a 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," [the castmembers] Goodman, Metcalf, Gilbert, Goranson and Fishman said in a joint statement. "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.”...

"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 said in a statement....

But it's fiction! In real life, they demonstrated that they don't always look for common ground through conversation, laughter and love. They made Roseanne Barr an instant pariah and shut her out of her own TV home, and she can never ever come back. The public had to be assured she was gone forever — that monstrous women, the greatest female in the history of television — so it can bear to watch another show that instructs them in the fictitious banality that families can always find common ground through conversation, laughter and love.

ADDED: More of what I think about "Roseanne" without Roseanne here, including an idea for a new show of Roseanne's own.

"Talks between ABC and 'Roseanne' producers on a possible spinoff of the canceled multicamera comedy are building momentum."

Variety reports.

Several significant obstacles, however, remain to potentially prevent a version of the series from continuing without Barr. “Roseanne” is based on a character created by Barr, who could argue that she therefore has an ownership stake in any iteration that includes other characters created for the series, such as Sara Gilbert’s Darlene Conner, around whom much spinoff speculation has centered. Any situation in which Barr would stand to gain financially from a new series is considered unpalatable to ABC and producers.

Quite aside from Roseanne's intellectual property interests, how can the idea of the Roseanne family work without Roseanne?

I've been very sympathetic to Sara Gilbert and others who have lost their job, but feeling bad about them isn't a great springboard for comedy. I'm not going to donate my time sitting watching TV to a make-work program for actors I feel sorry for. I've been watching Gilbert in the media in the aftermath of Roseanne's stupid tweets. For example, "Sara Gilbert Is 'Sad for the People Who Lost Their Jobs' on Roseanne" (People). Sadness... where's the comedy?

Gilbert's contribution to the show was kind of always a sad face. Darlene is world-weary, bitter, depressed (or something like that). Gilbert's sad face was designed to confront Roseanne. Who will Darlene confront without Roseanne? Don't say Dan. Dan is a character designed to love Roseanne. For all her sharp edges, he brought the love. What's he for without her? Is he just going to comfort and cheer up sad-faced Darlene?! Where's the comedy?!

Roseanne is kicked out because she was outrageous. She played a classic comedy role — crossing the lines, being offensive, and the rest of them grounded her and invited us in to love the crazily free-wheeling lady of the house, and we had a lot of fun there. But they rejected her. They booted out the mother. After all her outrageous talk, she said the wrong thing one day, and she's a pariah. Go! We hate you! You name — the name of our show — is nothing among decent people now. But why were we visiting this house all these years?

And why would we go back after you threw out your mother?! Because racism is bad? Racism is bad whether we go visit your house or not. We're not going to visit your sad, boring house as an anti-racism demonstration.

"I will say I'm proud of the show we made. The show has always been about diversity, love and inclusion and it's sad to see it end in this way."

"I am sad for the people who lost their jobs in the process. She then added: 'However. I do stand behind the decision that ABC made."



From "Sara Gilbert fights back tears as she breaks her silence about Roseanne scandal while seeming to kill possible spin-off talks as she expresses her sorrow for hundreds who lost jobs" (Daily Mail).

ADDED: Do you think that makes it seem more likely or less likely that there may be a continuing show centering on Sara Gilbert's character? I'd say more, because she's clearly supporting and honoring the ABC decision. That makes her more appealing to them.

I'm hoping ABC is taking my advice and redoing "Roseanne" centered on Sara Gilbert's character.

I'm seeing this at Deadline Hollywood:

I hear the show’s producers will be meeting with Disney-ABC executives on Monday to pitch a revamped Roseanne without the title star (and likely the original title too)....

Details about the concept that will be pitched are unclear but the show is expected to stay true to the praised first season of the revival — the series’ 11th overall — featuring the other cast members except Barr. There could be stronger emphasis on Sara Gilbert’s character Darlene, which can be expected since the revival was centered mainly on three characters, Roseanne (Barr), Dan (John Goodman) and their daughter Darlene (Gilbert) who moved back home with her kids.

As we previously reported, executive producers Tom Werner, who also executive produced the original series, and Gilbert, the main driving force behind the revival, are believed to be spearheading the efforts to continue the show and keep the writers, led by executive producer/showrunner Bruce Helford, and crew employed post-cancellation.

I said this when I first heard about the cancelation:

I feel sorry for Sara Gilbert:

Gilbert, who played Darlene on "Roseanne" and had been largely credited with spearheading the relaunch of the sitcom, tweeted that Barr's statements "do not reflect the beliefs of our cast and crew or anyone associated with our show."

"I am disappointed in her actions to say the least," Gilbert continued. "This is incredibly sad and difficult for all of us, as we’ve created a show that we believe in, are proud of, and that audiences love -- one that is separate and apart from the opinions and words of one cast member."

I'll say what Gilbert is not saying: She just got her good work and her rising career shot to hell.

ADDED: "Darlene Is the Best Reason to Watch the New Rosanne."

And this the next morning:

I'm skeptical. Did ABC really cancel "Roseanne," or are we sucked into high-drama theater with more scenes to come? Is this like the Donald Trump and Kim Jong-Un show, where it's on, then it's off, then it's on?...

Before the reboot, the series had ended with Roseanne's husband dead. So come back with Roseanne dead. Was she really the without-which-none of the show? She's a bad actor compared to the others. John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf are at the complete opposite end of the scale — great actors. Sara Gilbert ("Darlene") seems to have been the brains of the reboot. She could become the central character. Build the new season around John Goodman, Laurie Metcalfe, and Sara Gilbert, and leave the dead weight of Roseanne behind.

But in the comments, daskol waxed pessimistic:

Great actors are moons and need a planet. Great TV writers too, and even clever Sara Gilbert is merely a moon without a planet. Roseanne is a planet.

Thoughts on the morning after the Roseanne debacle.

I'm skeptical. Did ABC really cancel "Roseanne," or are we sucked into high-drama theater with more scenes to come? Is this like the Donald Trump and Kim Jong-Un show, where it's on, then it's off, then it's on?

There's so much politics-and-showbiz going on, and I'm not going to sit passively in a comfy chair as a good little audience member. 

I predict Roseanne Barr will have more scenes to play, perhaps some slow rolling out of apologies as the new TV season approaches and new episodes are teased about how Roseanne Connor said something racist and kind of might actually be a racist or maybe Dan is a secret racist and Darlene comes to the rescue and the little he's-not-transgender boy shows us how to love again.

What soppy goo we slurp up every day! It's always something new. For example, right now, I'm seeing "Roseanne Barr blames sleep aid Ambien for racist tweet" (Reuters)...

“It was 2 in the morning and I was Ambien tweeting-it was memorial day too-i went 2 far & do not want it defended-it was egregious Indefensible,” she wrote. “I made a mistake I wish I hadn’t but...don’t defend it please.”

What does "it was memorial day too" even mean? Roseanne has a disorderly mind — or speaks as though she does — but she's done a bang-up job of grabbing our attention and that draws into question how orderly our minds are. Step back. Get skeptical. You only have the hours and minutes in your life that you have. You must use that time as it happens in the now. Every second you pay attention to one thing, you lose a second that would have gone somewhere else.

How many seconds of human time can Roseanne or Donald Trump or Kim Jong-Un amass? Kudos to them for their unfolding victories in the game of paying attention.

IN THE COMMENTS: Eleanor said:

Personally, I think Roseanne saw some of next season's scripts, didn't like the way the story was going, and wanted out. She'll rehabilitate herself, maybe another network will pick her up, and she'll get more control of the show. If not, she can afford to enjoy her retirement, knowing she put liberal hypocrisy on grand display.

Leland said:

I think it is cancelled. She insulted the Obamas by insulting Valerie Jarrett. And the comment was definitely ugly, despite years of Chimpy McHitler. Fair enough, what she tweeted about VJ was not nearly as bad as dressing up as Hitler and pulling ginger bread men out of the oven. That latter joke didn't keep ABC from hiring her in the first place.

Yes, the problem of likening humans to apes, an interesting variation on the age-old resistance to the notion of evolution. We are primates, all of us, the same order as the apes. Bush was "Chimpy McHitler," and let's not forget that time Trump sued Bill Maher for joking that Trump was the son of an orangutan.

Oh! And I see that people have not forgotten. There's already: "Roseanne Supporters Are Calling For HBO To Fire Bill Maher For Calling Trump An Orangutan" (Hollywood Life).

Henry said:

I don't think Roseanne walks this one off -- at least not until she does a full Mel Gibson disappearance for a few years.

Pre-production on the next season was already underway. It wouldn't surprise me if Disney tries to reboot the show without Roseanne. Maybe she dies off-screen and Dan remarries Betty White.

Roseanne's next page is to go full Charlie Sheen. She's not getting her show back.

Yes, I thought that too. Do the show without "Roseanne." Before the reboot, the series had ended with Roseanne's husband dead. So come back with Roseanne dead. Was she really the without-which-none of the show? She's a bad actor compared to the others. John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf are at the complete opposite end of the scale — great actors. Sara Gilbert ("Darlene") seems to have been the brains of the reboot. She could become the central character. Build the new season around John Goodman, Laurie Metcalfe, and Sara Gilbert, and leave the dead weight of Roseanne behind.

Sal said:

My new script idea: Roseanne has an encounter with some black guy. He complains about her apes reference and she gives him ten bucks. His eyes light up!

LOL. (He's referring to this. I love comments that incorporate stuff from other posts.)

AND: daskol said:

Great actors are moons and need a planet. Great TV writers too, and even clever Sara Gilbert is merely a moon without a planet. Roseanne is a planet.