Jump to content

The Conners

6 hours ago, HadleyFields said:

Remember when John Ritter passed away near the beginning of season 2 of 8 Simple Rules? They were able to continue as a sitcom for 2 seasons, so it can be done. 

I referenced this in another thread, I still recall that first episode when they dealt with "Paul's" death.  Very touching and very well done.  If they approach it properly they could make a very memorable (in a good way) episode.  If it were my choice to make I'd have them open with an interment that is taking place months after the death, something that is very commonly done, and that way they can give her a decent burial, people will be sad, but enough time will have gone by that the first shock and grief have passed and they can get away with moving the storylines along without constant references to Roseanne.  

2

Share Post


Link to post
4 hours ago, JacquelineAppleton said:

They did do All in the Family without the family, so it is possible.

Well..sort of. The last season was just Archie and Edith, yes, but then it was Archie Bunker's Place afterwards...and Edith was a recurring character during the first season, and killed off at the beginning of the second once Jean Stapleton was free to leave.

And really, they are largely seen as separate entities. They're not often run together on the same syndication package at all; there are many younger people (not me, I'm 29 and obsessed with TV history) who probably don't know ABP existed at all.

0

Share Post


Link to post
3 hours ago, CherryAmes said:

I referenced this in another thread, I still recall that first episode when they dealt with "Paul's" death.  Very touching and very well done.  If they approach it properly they could make a very memorable (in a good way) episode.  If it were my choice to make I'd have them open with an interment that is taking place months after the death, something that is very commonly done, and that way they can give her a decent burial, people will be sad, but enough time will have gone by that the first shock and grief have passed and they can get away with moving the storylines along without constant references to Roseanne.  

There's a pretty good chance it will hurt syndication if they kill her off.  Nobody syndicates "8 Simple Rules."  With a few exceptions, comedies don't do well when they kill off a main character (in this case - the main character).  I don't think I'd want to watch Roseanne re-runs knowing she dies at some point.  It's just too depressing for a comedy.  

2

Share Post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, break21 said:

There's a pretty good chance it will hurt syndication if they kill her off.  Nobody syndicates "8 Simple Rules."  With a few exceptions, comedies don't do well when they kill off a main character (in this case - the main character).  I don't think I'd want to watch Roseanne re-runs knowing she dies at some point.  It's just too depressing for a comedy.  

I don't know. There were some episodes where she was so awful to her family it might be a comfort to know that she finally croaks.

3

Share Post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, break21 said:

There's a pretty good chance it will hurt syndication if they kill her off.  Nobody syndicates "8 Simple Rules."  With a few exceptions, comedies don't do well when they kill off a main character (in this case - the main character).  I don't think I'd want to watch Roseanne re-runs knowing she dies at some point.  It's just too depressing for a comedy.  

The first time I got through the entrie roseanne original series I would watch again, and again knowing that evrything that I watched turned out to be fiction(S9 finale)before season 10 was made. 

How do you think fans felt knowing that Dan Conner  is revealed to be dead in the original ending after his heart attack in S8. And that the couples were all fiction of roseanne's mind to cope. That's why some fans will appericiate S10 because it fixes the things that made no sense to us.

2

Share Post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, break21 said:

Nobody syndicates "8 Simple Rules." 

It taped well under 100 episodes, considered the minimum for a syndication run. I think many viewers would welcome a "bonus" season of John Ritter -- a kind, well-regarded human being and performer. Roseanne, on the other hand, made herself into someone that most of the country doesn't want to see or hear from again.

10

Share Post


Link to post
11 hours ago, HadleyFields said:

Remember when John Ritter passed away near the beginning of season 2 of 8 Simple Rules? They were able to continue as a sitcom for 2 seasons, so it can be done.

John Ritter died. His show was able to go on because everybody loved John Ritter and his death was tragic. Roseanne was fired. It's just not the same thing. 

 

On 6/23/2018 at 1:21 PM, BlossomCulp said:

Whatever Roseanne Barr the person has done (and I make no defense of her at all) many of us grew up with the character and grew to love her, warts and all.

Exactly. 

5

Share Post


Link to post
Quote

Remember when John Ritter passed away near the beginning of season 2 of 8 Simple Rules? They were able to continue as a sitcom for 2 seasons, so it can be done. 

Yes but there's a difference between 8 Simple Rules or All in the Family or even, to a lesser extent, Valerie/The Hogan Family. Roseanne was the main character and the stories tended to revolve around her. Archie Bunker was always the main character on All in the Family and 8 Simple Rules was more of an ensemble show - Jason Ritter's character wasn't the namesake of the show. And even in the case of Valerie Harper, the teenagers became the stars of the show, which is why she ended up leaving it. 

I think for the majority of fans - especially the ones that supported the reboot - Roseanne herself was the main draw. Yeah, there are lots of viewers who say they are more interested in Dan or Darlene or Becky but I'm not sure the show is going to attract the same audience without its namesake star. This really is new territory for a network sitcom so if nothing else it will be an interesting experiment.

1

Share Post


Link to post

Roseanne was never the main draw for me to watch the reboot. I wanted to see how the kids were doing. I'm around the same age as DJ/Michael. 

Having seen the reboot, Roseanne was still the least interesting character for me. It was also getting harder to separate her from her character. 

Edited by Sakura12.
7

Share Post


Link to post

Whatever they do, it can easily be undone. As it was for Dan. So I’m not worried. If The Connors end up being pretty successful, I can see Roseanne getting back on the show... eventually. We shall see. 

0

Share Post


Link to post
5 hours ago, break21 said:

There's a pretty good chance it will hurt syndication if they kill her off.  Nobody syndicates "8 Simple Rules."  With a few exceptions, comedies don't do well when they kill off a main character (in this case - the main character).  I don't think I'd want to watch Roseanne re-runs knowing she dies at some point.  It's just too depressing for a comedy.  

As I've said before, though, Edith died in season 2 of Archie Bunker's Place, but that never hurt All in the Family's rerun history. 

And it's not like the lottery season hurt Roseanne's rerun history up to this point, either. Not at all.

1

Share Post


Link to post

Hard to say - tabloids (yeah, so reliable, some better than others) are saying everyone's fighting over who is the main focus and the script.  I can believe that.  When it was Roseanne, there was no question the show revolved around Roseanne.  Now, who knows, egos abound.  IMO, it will implode but it will be interesting to see just how it plays out.  JMO.

3

Share Post


Link to post
On 6/22/2018 at 11:37 AM, RocknRollZombie said:

But, anyways it was said that 'the conners' would tackle parenting, unexpected pregnacy(Becky? Please no), in-laws (DJ and his in-laws. yess)

The whole unexpected pregnacy thing when I read it I hope Becky dosen't  by some 'miracle' becomes pregnant. People were irritated with the andrea/surgancy storyline. I hope they can use that as a way to bring back andrea. To have Andrea the one that ya know becomes pregnant, and ask Becky to be like her future kid's nanny/care-taker.

My guess for the unexpected pregnancy is Harris.  Seems way more believable than Darlene or Becky.  There's also DJ's wife but an unexpected storyline with them would be very underwhelming.  

1

Share Post


Link to post
7 hours ago, break21 said:

Nobody syndicates "8 Simple Rules." 

It's been on ABC Spark here in Canada for at least the last few months that I've noticed anyway.  They definitely are showing all 3 seasons, actually this week they just circled back to season 1 again.

I don't think killing off Roseanne would be the death knell of the show - crappy writing and acting is what will screw it up.  And I do think they need to give the family some positive, happy stuff happen.  No one tunes into a sitcom week after week to watch misery and unhappiness. We've got the news for that!

Edited by CherryAmes.
5

Share Post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CherryAmes said:

It's been on ABC Spark here in Canada for at least the last few months that I've noticed anyway.  They definitely are showing all 3 seasons, actually this week they just circled back to season 1 again.

I don't think killing off Roseanne would be the death knell of the show - crappy writing and acting is what will screw it up.  And I do think they need to give the family some positive, happy stuff happen.  No one tunes into a sitcom week after week to watch misery and unhappiness. We've got the news for that!

If they could spin some good, happy stuff, as well as some setbacks, happening as the karmic scales shifting back to zero after FEMA funding </> Roseanne dying during knee surgery, it could work out?

1

Share Post


Link to post
18 hours ago, break21 said:

Hard to say - tabloids (yeah, so reliable, some better than others) are saying everyone's fighting over who is the main focus and the script.  I can believe that.  When it was Roseanne, there was no question the show revolved around Roseanne.  Now, who knows, egos abound.  IMO, it will implode but it will be interesting to see just how it plays out.  JMO.

None of the actors involved seem like egomaniacs so I take that information with a grain of salt. Its more likely the writers/producers are arguing on who to focus on, because they are trying to determine who will be the biggest audience draw.  I could see them being split down the middle between Darlene and Jackie.

This show will survive if they have good writing in place. The acting side is already covered. The reboot suffered because of Whitney Cummings and Wanda Sykes IMO. Both of them grew up solidly upper middle class and had no clue what real blue collar life looked like. The show hit all the middle class stereotypes but was missing its heart. Wonder who will be the new showrunner?

Edited by AgentRXS.
5

Share Post


Link to post
2 hours ago, AgentRXS said:

None of the actors involved seem like egomaniacs so I take that information with a grain of salt. Its more likely the writers/producers are arguing on who to focus on, because they are trying to determine who will be the biggest audience draw.  I could see them being split down the middle between Darlene and Jackie.

This show will survive if they have good writing in place. The acting side is already covered. The reboot suffered because of Whitney Cummings and Wanda Sykes IMO. Both of them grew up solidly upper middle class and had no clue what real blue collar life looked like. The show hit all the middle class stereotypes but was missing its heart. Wonder who will be the new showrunner?

I agree about Whitney Cummings but Wanda is pretty damn funny - I've seen her stand-up a few times and she's really down-to-earth,

I can see a LOT of bickering going on among actors and writers.  Sandra Bernard said she doesn't see how the show can go on without Roseanne (and she's mad at Roseanne for cutting her part in the re-boot) because there's no central character for the others to play off of.  In Old Roseanne, it might have been Darlene.  In the reboot, IMO Gilbert is playing Gilbert instead of sarcastic, moody Darlene.  The character doesn't even resemble Darlene and is a complete push-over.  No-way they can center the show on her at this point.  Metcalf's Jackie has gone way too out-there to relate to at times, she's out.  Goodman looked to be phoning it in for some episodes (not the last one though).  His character is too passive.  The new characters are too annoying (Harris) or too young (Mark) to revolve around.

I can see everyone fighting about what happens without a clear star.  IMO - ALL actors  have huge egos.  To think you can entertain millions of people you have to  The public persona is what they want you to see - not necessarily how they are in real life.  Goodman was admittedly a complete jerk during the first run of the show, but none of that came out at the time because Roseanne was such a side-show for the tabloids no-one cared about the others.  Now that she's not there, I suspect the tabloids will start paying attention to the BTS behavior of those left.  It might not be pretty.

3

Share Post


Link to post

At first I hated the idea of adding a Roseanne substitute to the cast but just thinking about the lack of a clear focus for the show, maybe they do need one.  The widowers I've known, in my own family and friends, tend to remarry quickly. How the whole family reacts to that could take a lot of pressure off and let the existing characters remain who they are now. (More or less.)

Not Sally Struthers though.  She's okay in (very) small doses but not seeing her with JG. 

2

Share Post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, tessaray said:

Not Sally Struthers though.  She's okay in (very) small doses but not seeing her with JG. 

Though having Sally Struthers as a stepmother would give Darlene a new lease on snark...I wonder if Blair Brown might be available. She has the moxie to mix it up with Goodman and Metcalf.

3

Share Post


Link to post

It doesn't make sense to me to have a show called, "The Conner's", center on Jackie Harris. Unless they change the show to, "The Jackie 3.0 Show."  IMO, they need to agree on a genuine ensemble cast to make it work. 

The point I was making, in a prior post regarding 8 Simple Rules, is that it's a good example of how a sitcom can continue after the loss of a fictional character in the show to death (if that's what happens to Mrs. Conner).  I love to see character development and if death is the storyline, it opens up a new dimension for the actors.  As tragic as John Ritter's death was, the scenes of his character's daughters dealing with his loss are some of the best in my memory. I was completely in it to see Katey Sagal's portrayal of becoming a widow, too.  I know John Goodman could certainly bring it on, too. I'd like to see him lean on Jackie for part of his support system* and Jackie showing her strength as the one they rely on.

*I thought of the show, Mom, and the friends in the AA support group. Dan could meet some interesting folks in a Widowers group! 

1

Share Post


Link to post

Widower Dan,Widow Becky, single parent Darlene, Life coach Jackie, DJ, and of course the kids.

Dan, and Becky can develop a closer father-daughter bond. 

They both lost the love of their lives, Becky at a young age, and Dan had more years with Roseanne. Besides it always been hinted that Becky & Mark parelled Roseanne & Dan. 

It obvious Darlene always had the closer relationship to the Dan between the two sisters. 

I would honestly like to see the familial bonds strengthed. And the roles that Becky, and DJ have as Aunt/Uncle to Harris, and Mark.And of course more Mary as well.

2

Share Post


Link to post

One important difference with the spinoff is that they only have 10 episodes to tell this story.  That doesn't seem long enough to properly handle fresh grief.  I'm sure they could pull it off with a more traditional season but they are going to have to hit the ground running. 

 

10 minutes ago, HadleyFields said:

The point I was making, in a prior post regarding 8 Simple Rules, is that it's a good example of how a sitcom can continue after the loss of a fictional character in the show to death (if that's what happens to Mrs. Conner).  I love to see character development and if death is the storyline, it opens up a new dimension for the actors.  As tragic as John Ritter's death was, the scenes of his character's daughters dealing with his loss are some of the best in my memory. I was completely in it to see Katey Sagal's portrayal of becoming a widow, too.  I know John Goodman could certainly bring it on, too. I'd like to see him lean on Jackie for part of his support system* and Jackie showing her strength as the one they rely on.

0

Share Post


Link to post
6 hours ago, tessaray said:

One important difference with the spinoff is that they only have 10 episodes to tell this story.  That doesn't seem long enough to properly handle fresh grief.  I'm sure they could pull it off with a more traditional season but they are going to have to hit the ground running. 

 

I’m guessing the ten episodes is a starting point to see how the audience accepts the new spinoff. I could see them adding episodes to the season if the show does well and the cast agrees to do more episodes.  I’m just wondering how the ten episodes will be spaced out. Will it be a full fall season or will we get a few episodes in the fall and a few in the spring. 

1

Share Post


Link to post

Most viewers, I think, won't want to tune in to mourn the latter-day Roseanne Conner, not even for the sake of her family. We parted ways with her in May, as the price paid for being rid of Roseanne Barr. Four months later we'll have long since made our peace with that.

A retroactive dating of season 10 by a year could work, placing the stories we saw into the spring of 2017. The Conners could open a few months after the first anniversary of Roseanne's death. The focus of episode 1 should be an event within the surviving family: nothing to do with Roseanne or her departure.

4

Share Post


Link to post

I agree, placing it a year or so later would work for me. We know her family will mourn her, I don't need to see it. On other shows like 8 Simple Rules they were honoring a well liked star that died. On this show that's not the case. The character can be missed by her family but the star should not be honored. 

Put it a year later and like Pallas said make it the anniversary of her death and have it be about the surviving members and how it changed them. Maybe Roseanne's death is what pushes Becky to go back to school. 

9

Share Post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Sakura12 said:

We know her family will mourn her, I don't need to see it. 

 

This.  And, in particular, as much as I dislike Bev I do not want to see a mother mourning her child. 

3

Share Post


Link to post
2 hours ago, snarkylady said:

And, in particular, as much as I dislike Bev I do not want to see a mother mourning her child. 

And even less do I want them to make Bev horrible and casual about losing a child - they did this on Two and Half Men and if I was already convinced NOT to continue watching this would have sealed it for me.  Anyway I know Bev has a difficult relationship with both her daughters but there is love there so if they continue with Bev on the show I hope they recognize that.   

1

Share Post


Link to post

I vote for a CGI version of Roseanne, like Colossus in Deadpool.

2

Share Post


Link to post
On 6/26/2018 at 6:46 PM, break21 said:

Hard to say - tabloids (yeah, so reliable, some better than others) are saying everyone's fighting over who is the main focus and the script.  I can believe that.  When it was Roseanne, there was no question the show revolved around Roseanne.  Now, who knows, egos abound.  IMO, it will implode but it will be interesting to see just how it plays out.  JMO.

Speaking of this, I would love to see a behind the scenes documentary about how everyone at the network is scrambling to fix this. I would find that way more interesting than the reboot itself.

6

Share Post


Link to post

I still think the more logical solution would be to do a spin-off about Darlene returning to Chicago, which would allow for occasional appearances by John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf. You have to think neither will commit to this show beyond this coming season. Maybe Becky could move to Chicago too and they could share an apartment. That's a fairly easy side-step in eliminating the character of Roseanne without the drastic move of killing her off. She'd just be off screen and rarely mentioned, like any other character that gets written off a show.

1

Share Post


Link to post
On 6/26/2018 at 5:46 PM, break21 said:

Hard to say - tabloids (yeah, so reliable, some better than others) are saying everyone's fighting over who is the main focus and the script.  I can believe that.  When it was Roseanne, there was no question the show revolved around Roseanne.  Now, who knows, egos abound.  IMO, it will implode but it will be interesting to see just how it plays out.  JMO.

I could see arguing among the actors that wouldn't be strictly about ego. At least not about ego in a pejorative sense. Metcalf, Goodman, and Gilbert were at a different place in their careers in 1988. They agreed to play supporting parts in the re-boot because those were the parts they played then. But now the game has changed. I could see (for instance) Laurie Metcalf saying, "I'm sorry, but I'm just not interested in being this show's Kramer anymore."  It wouldn't be one of those "I'm too BIG for this part" things. It would be, "I sincerely have other needs for my career at this stage than playing third banana in a show I've put this much of my life into." Same goes for the other two. I think they'll all take the money because the money is too huge to pass up, but that doesn't mean there'll be peace and harmony. The roles really have to be co-equal leads. 

Edited by Milburn Stone.
2

Share Post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

I could see arguing among the actors that wouldn't be strictly about ego. At least not about ego in a pejorative sense. Metcalf, Goodman, and Gilbert were at a different place in their careers in 1988. They agreed to play supporting parts in the re-boot because those were the parts they played then. But now the game has changed. I could see (for instance) Laurie Metcalf saying, "I'm sorry, but I'm just not interested in being this show's Kramer anymore."  It wouldn't be one of those "I'm too BIG for this part" things. It would be, "I sincerely have other needs for my career at this stage than playing third banana in a show I've put this much of my life into." Same goes for the other two. I think they'll all take the money because the money is too huge to pass up, but that doesn't mean there'll be peace and harmony. The roles really have to be co-equal leads. 

There has been no confirmation from credible sources that any of that is happening. Gilbert, Goodman, and Metcalf were getting paid for the upcoming season either way, so the only change for them is that they’re making the season without Roseanne. And since they all have decades-long reputations for being consummate professionals, I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

7

Share Post


Link to post

The reboot has been ripe with controversy pretty much from day one.  It’s possible now that now that everyone is getting along that controversy is being manufactured.  Hen again they are actors and all pretty big ones and with Roseanne as a buffer they were pretty much left alone.  Now that she is gone..all hell might break loose.

0

Share Post


Link to post
1 hour ago, chocolatine said:

There has been no confirmation from credible sources that any of that is happening. Gilbert, Goodman, and Metcalf were getting paid for the upcoming season either way, so the only change for them is that they’re making the season without Roseanne. And since they all have decades-long reputations for being consummate professionals, I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

That is a good reminder. We are dealing with our own speculations. Nevertheless our own speculations may be plausible. To me it's entirely plausible, expectable, and natural for a Goodman or a Metcalf to say, "I understood why I was in a secondary role when we had a star. That's not the case anymore."

In fact, far from blaming them for taking that position, I'd be amazed if they didn't.

2

Share Post


Link to post

They could also be saying, “Let’s just get through the 10 episodes we’re contracted for and call it a day.”

5

Share Post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

Goodman already has an HBO show so there is that.  

That says a lot.

1

Share Post


Link to post

There's a pretty good chance it will hurt syndication if they kill her off. 

I'm not sure having less than 120 episodes for syndication means much anymore.

I was watching Letterkenney tonight- streamed all SIX episodes. And last week I watched both seasons of Dirk Gently's Wholistic Detective Agency -- 20 episodes total. Next week I'll be watching Frankie and Grace or else The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt Season 4. Outside of broadband, seasons seem to be around 10 episodes.

I don't often watch broadcast TV because I forget when programs will be on.

While I'm more likely to watch two or three episodes  a night than an entire season at once, I suspect I am not unusual.

Does your area have stations (not subscription cable) that plays syndicated shows?

0

Share Post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.