Will a Roseanne reboot centered on Sara Gilbert and her kids succeed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:TMZ is now saying they'll be back this fall, without Roseanne. I'm putting it out here first. The question is "How will they deal with Roseanne not being on the show anymore?" Here is the answer I came up with three seconds after the show was canceled:

Dan got the money due to the big storm in the last episode that aired. That would be enough money to fix the house himself AND pay for Roseanne's knee surgery. When the show comes back, Roseanne has to have DIED IN KNEE SURGERY. Like Kanye's mom dying in plastic surgery - it's possible, but freak accident-style.

Okay, see you all in September to see if I'm right! Bye!

Once again I’ll pass, poisoned fruit from the same tree. They knew who Roseanne was prior to the reboot. When you sell your soul for a pay day you eventually pay the price.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:ALL bad white trash. Glad the show is toast.

You cannot say that all of the actors in the show were not complicit in Roseanne’s racism. They were there to make a buck and put up with her bs to get a paycheck.

For any of them to play dumb is just silly. They knew who they were working with/for.

John, Laurie and Sara are all terrible actors who seemingly turned a blind eye to that hateful woman.

If you lie down with dogs . . .

So happy its OVER.

Laurie Metcalf is a brilliant actress and was nominated for an oscar. No idea why she would get back into this TV mess.

$$$$$

[Anonymous]

No, I don't think it will succeed. Roseanne was the main reason people were watching the show. I'm sure this reboot will only last one season and bye bye.

[Anonymous]

Remember their youngest son was somewhere far away? Maybe they'll send her off to visit him?

Killing her off would be extreme. What if she magically redeems herself?

Personally, I don't think they should bring it back. I would much rather watch a reboot of Perfect Strangers or The Nanny.

We saw how the Connors turned out...no bueno.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Remember their youngest son was somewhere far away? Maybe they'll send her off to visit him?

Killing her off would be extreme. What if she magically redeems herself?

Personally, I don't think they should bring it back. I would much rather watch a reboot of Perfect Strangers or The Nanny.

We saw how the Connors turned out...no bueno.

This sounds most likely to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, I don't think it will succeed. Roseanne was the main reason people were watching the show. I'm sure this reboot will only last one season and bye bye.

Roseanne was never the main reason I watched the show. I'm a year younger than Sara Gilbert, and I watched for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, I don't think it will succeed. Roseanne was the main reason people were watching the show. I'm sure this reboot will only last one season and bye bye.

The ratings were so high because of the "Trump" people watching it.

The first episode will have high ratings due to curiosity.

The rest might not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I don't think it will succeed. Roseanne was the main reason people were watching the show. I'm sure this reboot will only last one season and bye bye.

Roseanne was never the main reason I watched the show. I'm a year younger than Sara Gilbert, and I watched for her.

+1 I love John Goodman and the kids. Roseanne was occasionally funny but she wasn't the reason I watched.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, I don't think it will succeed. Roseanne was the main reason people were watching the show. I'm sure this reboot will only last one season and bye bye.

I was watching in spite of her because John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf are so great.

[Anonymous]

Roseanne was so successful because of the ensemble cast. She gets full credit for creating the show, fighting for it to remain a certain way in the 80s/90s, developing the platform etc. but now they have the world set up and a built in audience, I think the ensemble could succeed without her.

John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf are beloved and a lot of viewers like me are in for the nostalgia factor - the side characters, rest of the family, setting, etc. So I think it could. I'm sad Roseanne went so far off the deep end. It's really a shame. I'd be willing to give the show a shot without her on it.

[Anonymous]

I love John Goodman, Lauri Metcalf, and Sara Gilbert...so will watch it!

[Anonymous]

You could not pay me to watch this tripe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Roseanne was so successful because of the ensemble cast. She gets full credit for creating the show, fighting for it to remain a certain way in the 80s/90s, developing the platform etc. but now they have the world set up and a built in audience, I think the ensemble could succeed without her.

John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf are beloved and a lot of viewers like me are in for the nostalgia factor - the side characters, rest of the family, setting, etc. So I think it could. I'm sad Roseanne went so far off the deep end. It's really a shame. I'd be willing to give the show a shot without her on it.

Same.

I originally watched when it was first on the air. I was between the ages of Becky & Darlene, and their dynamic was so much like mine with my sister, down to hair color, personality, etc. Their family was a lot like mine.

Then I re-watched when I was about the same age as Dan & Roseanne.

The show really has a special place in my heart, and I think it could an survive post-Roseanne.

It seems like Dan is a bit angrier and quicker to lose his temper this go-round—I hope that he softens a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You could not pay me to watch this tripe.

But you'll post about it for free.

[Anonymous]

I don't think they will permanently kill off Roseanne's character from the show. If they did that, there would be no opening for her to come back later, should they choose. They'll probably just introduce a storyline about her going away to somewhere she'll never come back from. Or maybe about her going missing or getting kidnapped or something.