Connect with us



A Revamped ‘Roseanne’ Centering Around Sara Gilbert In The Works?


Circle Monday, June 4th as an important date in the continuing saga of if the pieces can be picked up from the cancellation of Roseanne.

Multiple sources are reporting that there will be a major pitch meeting with Disney/ABC executives on Monday to present a revamped Roseanne without the title star.

According to TMZ, this reboot of a reboot will be centered around Sara Gilbert’s character of Darlene.  It has been rumored that Gilbert has been calling up cast members to see if she can pique their interest in staying on board if the reboot should get greenlit.  John Goodman is said to be interested. The report also says that Tom Werner, who produced Roseanne from his company Carsey-Werner, is also a part of this reboot effort.

Overall, Deadline reports that while Roseanne 2.0 looks a little brighter than it did immediately, there are still major hurdles to overcome.  One being the legal and rights issues that would have to be settled with Roseanne Barr as co-creator and executive producer on the series and what is deemed ownership/backend.  As TV fans know, Barr was very critical of Sara Gilbert and other Roseanne cast member Michael Fishman when they condemned her tweets about Valerie Jarrett.

In the wake of ABC’s decision to cancel Roseanne, they’re obviously trying to salvage the jobs of those who were affected by their sudden and swift action earlier this week.  That includes such departments as the crew, and the writers.

Daytime fans know, Gilbert has become quite the heavy-hitter.  She is the executive producer of the Daytime Emmy Award-winning afternoon show, The Talk.  So, if anyone can make this happen, our money is on Gilbert.

Would you like to see a revamped Roseanne?  Do you think the show should just be put out to pasture?  Comment below.

Leave a comment | 48 Comments

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Who knows… it could work!

Rebooting Rosanne without Rosanne would be Worse than the replacing of Charlie with Walden (2 half men) it didn’t work, it was terribly disappointing.
Blockbuster shows; the main characters are not replaceable and going on without the original star just is not doable.
Rosanne was way too big.. its Rosanne with Rosanne or shut it down.
create a new show with cast and staff.

Agree. The reboot of Two and a Half Men with idiot Kutcher was AWFUL. I thought the reboot of Roseanne was funny (I disliked the original). I didn’t care for Sara or her on-screen family.

Without the main lady of Rosseanne Barr in it I don’t think it will last long maybe 1or 2 years at the most

Just let it go!

Exactly, Karen! ABC made its bed when it hastily cancelled the show.without looking for other ways to address this situation…now it can deal with the fallout. Love her or loathe her, the entire premise was about Roseanne and her opposing views to other family members…without her there, this sitcom will offer no balance and nothing unique from other current comedy vehicles…it will just be more of the standard Hollywood leftist line! The initial success of the reboot was the fact that it offered something different, and that’s what drew the ratings….I predict that any effort to re-form the program into something politically-correct will be a total flop. So be it…

Can’t ever let it go the soap opera continues

Roseanne, Dan and Jackie is the stars. Roseanne put her granddaughter in her place cause Darlene wouldn’t, i loved it. I don’t want to see the girl walk all over her mother because Darlene lost her voice.

I disagree. I think it is real that Darlene would try raise her kids opposite of her parents’ methods, and then through experience of trials, find herself becoming more and more like them. I would love to see that development.

Sorry it will not even make it off the ground without Roseann and i will not be watching and i know a lot of other people who will not watch it . So wrong what they did to Roseann i am so sick of the liberals stopping everything that we are all trying to do to get the US back on her feet and this is a big fat no for me not without the lady who makes the show sorry not going to happen . I hope fox picks it up and Roseanne is back on the show!

No thanks

Umm NO! You cant have ROSANNE WITHOUT ROSANNE! That would be just horrible.

I would like to have the job revamped. I believe John Goodman and Sarah Gilbert would keep the show going.

The day (couple of hours long span) I heard about Roseanne’s tweetstorm, and the cancelation of her show… I said that if Roseanne couldn’t find a way to apologize, pay some “penance” and turn things around… they should *NOT* end the show… but instead, should retool and call the show “The Conners,” and have it be a continuation of the story they had already begun to tell… but one that takes place after Roseanne 1. Overdosed on her pain meds (a storyline already teased this past season), 2. Went batshit crazy… and 3. Had to be sent to some sort of long-term rehab.

With this scenario… the jobs of the actors, cast, and crew could be saved… and Roseanne could be given a chance, in time… to *EARN* her way back onto the show, eventually – if she is willing to make the effort!!

If the show is re-made to focus more on Sara’s character, Darlene, and Darlene’s family… I hope they’ll get Johnny Galecki back regularly as David!!!

Good stuff Jilly but I think ABC’s biggest hurdle is Roseanne fighting for her name and the show. Wven if they change the name, Roseanne would sue. Look at OLTL and AMC, those two shows held ABC captive courtesy of Prospect Park!

boffo: Roseanne Barr – would – relinquish “all” rights to letting her mind go. she couldn’t possibly run and exile herself on a Hawaiian island again ? she got caught, just like the rest of us … in the Trumpette wasteland. what was she doing ? cracking macadamia NUT. LOL. I certainly do not want her to be given a let , because her “comedic” tongue got in the way. BITE ME Roseanne. the writers may have thought they were being genuine in giving each cast member a behavior / social moray / whatever from 20 years ago.. and plopping it in our “evolving” mindset . yeah right.. to hell and a handbasket. TRUMPET… it turned out gimmicky and because we loved them then… my belly laugh didn’t.

so Roseanne Barr… relents and drops … for the good of the “other” cast and crew… DID SHE NEED that $250,000 an episode ? equal parts John Goodman w/Sara gilbert cashing in. WOW. okay .. I posted lives hang in the balance… I still want that. but Christ… this show is not a godsend, nor is it refreshing any of us or towing any ones line.


two things I was curious about… after I lost interest after the first ep first season.

1. Michael… did they even feature him with his WIFE ? saw their child.

2. I really liked the idea of the TWO BECKIES sharing story and living with their decision to have a child of their own … regardless of what the Connors wanted.

I truly never saw the same vein of the first show. especially with Roseanne as I thought she was the worst one. who didn’t have that vibe energy or gusto muchachos… her gonads went missing

Great answer!! I think that could work!

No no and No. No reboot.

People are emotionally worked up, and great decisions cab Not be made from emotions.
The Rosanne show is Rosanne and always will be, no knock-off can replace it or be as it.

And Shara Gilbert is not strong enough, in any way that is needed to replace Rosanne.

The cast is an awesome cast they need to build on the cast and create a new show.
John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf, Johnny Galecki, have no need to be in Rosanne’s shadow.

Again– people need to calm down and get their emotions in check and then work on creating a show and not use Rosanne’s show, not a reboot because it would be disappointing.

That cast, the characters are portrayed as down and out low/ middle-class people work on that.
A new show for them could be called- The Miserables.

I would be for it because I love all the characters besides Roseanne so this would be just as enjoyable to me.

I honestly don’t think I would watch it. ABC created this situation and I think they overreacted by cancelling the show ‘Roseanne’. They could have easily postponed production of the show until things were sorted out. Now they’re trying to “salvage” the jobs of crew members, even though they distinctly said cancelling it ‘was the right thing to do’. That just sounds hypocritical.

Yes, “JustSaying.” Putting the show on “indefinite hiatus” would have been a more prudent move on the part of ABC and would have given the chance for the public mood to coalesce on what should have come next…the network took the easy way out! Instead of using this controversy to create a useful dialogue regarding a number of important issues, they just washed their hands of the entire experience toute de suite, sans regard for the many people affected by their hasty decision. But hey, at least they certainly scored some major points with their most favored political allies, so I’m sure all things considered, ABC would call this a win-win situation….ratings be damned!

I wouldn’t watch it with Roseanne but if she is out I would definitely give it a try.

Not without Roseanne.

I’d watch it only if I was assured Barr was getting no financial compensation from it.

If she truly was sorry for those who lost their jobs, she’d sign away the rights for this spinoff

I dont know…why not do a whole new show that isnt related to Roseanne with some of the stars…and speaking of Roseanne i seen people do just as bad stuff and still working!!!!

ABC knew who Roseanne was when they signed her on. She has mental issues and they should never have agreed to sign her on knowing what they knew about her. When one has mental issues you don’t suddenly become well as soon as you’re put in a position of power. It doesn’t work that way.

Thank you, Harry! I also mentioned on the previous thread that Roseanne obviously has mental issues and it didn’t make it online. How anyone could’ve doubted that after her disgraceful national anthem performance is beyond me…not to mention plenty of other bizarre behavior through the years.. Quite simply, this woman derives delight by shocking and offending…and she’s equal opportunity in that respect….has any group of people been spared of her jabs in the past??? I think not. Hence perhaps, rather than condemning her, she should be pitied by us, not reviled…

No dead duck!

An Example —-
Two and a Half Men was about the Harper family, Alan Harper- Jake Harper- Charlie Harper.
Charlie died when he fell in front of a subway train in Paris and that was when Two and a Half Men died..

They tried their best to save it by bringing in Ashton Kutcher as Walden to replace Charlie but Charlie was Two and a Half Men and it failed.
Charlies Harper is the legend.
You can’t Replace a Legend.
Rosanne is Rosanne a legend and there is no show without Rosanne. It would fail.
(( just an example)
I can think of other shows that could not go on without its legend star.(Big Band is not Big Bang without Parsons/Sheldon.

Darlene has actually been the least entertaining character on the reboot. Her teenage and childhood sarcasm which was funny 20 years ago now comes across as mean spirited. They have made Darlene into a pushover parent, and her onscreen daughter, though sharing a great resemblance, is not a funny or entertaining character either. This is a family show called Roseanne, centered on Roseanne, and would not work without Roseanne. What I could see working is a show called Jackie…centered on Laurie Metcalf’s character as a life coach! The thought of neurotic, dysfunctional Jackie as a life coach is hilarious as a premise!! The show could centre on her and a few of her clients. She could move out of Lanford to Chicago. She could have a new circle of friends with her clients, etc. It would be kind of like Frasier, only less sophosticated and refined. There could still be room for crossovers…Roseanne characters could visit. None of the kids, Becky, Darlene, or DJ are strong enough to carry a sitcom.

@Jovin…”Kind of like Frasier, only less sophisticated and refined…” That’s it in a nutshell….I’ll take a pass!

Do a revamp. Name it The Connors.

It would work, for sure. Roseanne was the centerpiece but it was Jackie who shined! Plus, John Goodman is a gem and could easily be the centerpiece now. He is a big star with tons of talent. Lastly, the show has a ton of talent driving the show from behind the scenes so they wouldnt let the reboot falter.

Jackie did shine!

YES YES YES!!!! I really enjoyed the show, it was filled with ALOT of talent, and Darlene’s story was the most interesting of all. I hope they can revive it, ABC took the right action, and this would be a great way to keep all those jobs. I hope Roseanne can see her way to let it happen.

NO..NO….will never watch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A great solution. “Roseanne” the show replaced the Becky character when the actress couldn’t do the show any longer, and “Roseanne” went on without John Goodman when he didn’t want to do the show any longer. This, to me, is just an extension of that. Roseanne, the actress, has always been a loose cannon and, I’m sure, the execs at ABC have had to ‘grin and bear it’ on a number of occasions over the past six months. I see the events of last week merely being the last straw.

Many have suggested killing the Roseanne character (like they did with Charlie Sheen’s character – sort of – on ‘Two and a Half Men” when he finally got to be too much for the CBS excecs to deal with any longer), but I think that’d be short sighted. Have Darlene and Jackie move back to Chicago and have DJ, Dan and David visit occasionally. Johnny Galecki’s show will end in a year and, while not hurting for money or anything, I’m sure could be persuaded easily enough to make a few appearances. Small town people in the Big City changes the tone of the show but I think we’re already past salvaging Lanford given that “Lanford” is always going to be Roseanne’s domain in the minds of viewers. I’m not sure what to say about Roseanne (although the opiod addiction would be OK…. but Darlene and family leaving her would make them look heartless.

Unfortunately, the show does actually need a Roseanne type character – the type of person who fights the establishment. In the 90s Roseanne standing up to racists and homophobes, etc was the bread and butter of this show. Seeing how far she as a person and Roseanne as a character have fallen is rather sad – although, admittedly, people do indeed slide more conservative as they get older. In Roseanne’s case, the new show feels OOC and more pandering to a mind-set that she deems ‘controversial”. When you don’t have much else to offer, “controversy’ is a reliable direction (see also: Marty Saybrooke falling in love with her rapist on OLTL, for a daytime soap example). Still, had they been able to show WHY Roseanne veered so far the other direction, that might have been interesting. If a “Darlene” show would happen, I’d like to see her be more like the 90s Roseanne in that regard. Sara Gilbert does snide very well and that could be a good place to start esp if they made the location Chicago.

At the end of the day, it’s a kind of fascinating story to me for some reason. Maybe because, in the social media age, we all wrestle with figuring out our public vs private persona and how that affects our jobs and other people’s lives.

Sara Gilbert…GO FOR IT!!!!! Y-E-A-H!!!!!

Maybe they should call up Patrika Darbo (aka Chloe’s mom from Days of Our Lives) and recast the role of Roseanne. She actually played Roseanne Barr in a cheesy TV movie back in the 90s, and still resembles her a great deal. (Without the disgusting racist belief system, as far as I know)

Speaking logically- There is No Rosanne without Rosanne.
Sara Gilbert does not have what is needed to replace Rosanne, John Goodman is not Rosanne..
Roseanne is dead without Rosanne.

A new show would need to be created to keep the cast employed and that is risky.
A Roseanne reboot without Rosanne will fail .

I say go for it.

I’d love to see it back on……it makes me laugh…..

Who cares now .Anyway without Rosanne what good would the show be?

Change the name to Dan, or Darlene. Roseanne got what she deserved. She should never be back on the show.

Watching “The Talk” on Monday, and Sarah Gilbert patting herself on the back for being morally superior to Roseanne (the woman who made her famous and successful); my answer would have to be “NO, I will not be watching”.

I think that would be awesome she is amazing and it will be better than the original.

It won’t work without Roseanne….Sara Gilbert isn’t even that good of an actress to carry a show on her own. Again, ABC (fornicated) up!!! Let’s get rid of Roseanne but let’s leave Whoopi and Joy on to spew their nastiness every day and not say a thing to them or remove them from the air. This poor network is sinking faster than the Titanic.

I’d love to see it. I didn’t watch “Roseanne” but I would watch “Darlene”.


B&B’s Katherine Kelly Lang Weighs-In On Hope’s New Attitude: “Brooke is Starting to be Like, ‘Uh-oh! She’s Taking After Me!’ ”

The Bold and the Beautiful’s Brooke (Katherine Kelly Lang) has been not pleased with her daughter Hope’s (Annika Noelle) choice in bedfellows! After all, Brooke and Thomas (Matthew Atkinson) have a long history of disdain for each other (although there was that time they took psychedelic berries together and pranced around with not much clothes on).

Hope had divorced Liam (Scott Clifton) and has been getting much closer to Thomas, feeling he is the only man who ‘gets her’ and ‘sees her’ for who she really is.  On recent episodes of B&B, Hope has no problem giving into her desires for Thomas, now that she is no longer Hope Spencer.

Soap Opera Digest spoke with series iconic star, Katherine Kelly Lang to get her take on what she thinks of Hope’s attitude adjustment and recent behavior.

Photo: JPI

Lang expressed: “She seems to have changed a bit. She’s not the sweet little Hope that she once was and Brooke is starting to be like, ‘Uh-oh! She’s taking after me!’’

Brooke is not happy that Thomas has apparently won over Hope, when she is wary of the guy. Katherine added, “Thomas was stalking her (Hope) and he did all that crazy stuff with the baby. He just hasn’t been good for her, you know, especially when he was totally obsessed with her. So, Brooke doesn’t believe that that’s completely gone, that there’s still got to be some of that in Thomas somewhere and she’s worried about her daughter. So, of course, she would kind of say, ‘This is not good. This is just not a good situation. With all the men in the sea, why, why do you (pick Thomas)?”

Photo: JPI

However, many might see that as the pot calling the kettle black given how Brooke has often given into her desires with the men in her life and made some pretty bad choices herself!

So, is Hope turning into a ‘mini-Brooke’? Should Brooke continue to warn Hope of Thomas’ past, or should she just mind her own business at this point? Share your comments via the comment section.

Continue Reading

Breaking News

‘The Price is Right’ Decks the Halls with Five Holiday-Themed Primetime Episodes & Pet Rescue & Adoption Week on Daytime

Talk about getting into the holiday spirit! The Price is Right is set to air five brand new holiday-themed episodes airing in December on primetime, plus the daytime version will also have a special week. Host Drew Carey will preside over the game show proceedings!

Daytime’s The Price is Right holiday week (Dec 18-Dec 22) will feature animal trainer, author and host of CBS’ Lucky Dog Reunions, Brandon McMillan, and Robert Valandra, nephew of legendary host Bob Barker, who both bring along some furry friends up for adoption. The week concludes with ‘Price is Right’ model Amber Lancaster, an advocate of animal adoption, and some adorable dogs who need a home for the holidays.

The Price is Right continues to network television’s #1-rated daytime series and the longest-running game show in television history, broadcast weekdays (11:00 AM-12:00 PM, ET/10:00-11:00 AM, PT).

Photo: JPI

On Primetime, here is the holiday lineup of shows (the week of Dec 4-8):

THE PRICE IS RIGHT AT NIGHT: OFFICE HOLIDAY PARTY (Monday, December 4, 8:00 PM, ET/PT) brings coworkers and colleagues together to cheer each other on as they play for prizes that can be shared and enjoyed by all of their office mates.

THE PRICE IS RIGHT AT NIGHT: BLIND HOLIDATE (Thursday, December 7, 8:00 PM, ET/PT) brings in a matchmaker to pair up an audience full of single, eligible adults, and lucky contestants will meet for the first time when they are called to “Come on down!” and compete together as a team. They play for fabulous cash and prizes, pairs of cars, and maybe they’ll even win a love match!

THE PRICE IS RIGHT AT NIGHT: COLLEGE STUDENTS HOME FOR THE HOLIDAYS (Friday, December 8 at 8:00 PM ET/PT) welcomes college students home adorned in their best school spirit gear, teamed up with their parents to play for exotic trips, amazing prizes, and cash for college!

Photos: JPI

THE PRICE IS RIGHT AT NIGHT: HOLIDAYS WITH THE FAMILY (Monday, December 18, 8:00 PM, ET/PT). Parents and their young children compete for some of the most desired gifts Santa has in his sleigh. Decorated in their holiday best, families work as a team to win prizes to make their holidays oh so bright!

THE PRICE IS RIGHT AT NIGHT: HOLIDAY HEROES (Tuesday, December 19, 8:00 PM, ET/PT) salutes the military to thank America’s brave heroes for keeping us safe all year round. Active-duty military members in uniform compete for luxury items, including trips to remarkable destinations, $50,000 in cash, and cars!

Of note: Paramount+ Premium subscribers will have access to stream live via the live feed of their local CBS affiliate on the service as well as on demand. Essential-tier subscribers will have access to on-demand the day after the episode airs.

Lots of The Price is Right holiday cheer and pet adoptions coming your way. Will you be watching? Comment below. But first, check out a clip from one of the primetime episodes.

Continue Reading

Breaking News

96th Annual Academy Awards to Start an Hour Earlier, While Jimmy Kimmel Shares, “I Always Dreamed of Hosting the Oscars Exactly Four Times”

In a move to keep viewers not up past their bedtimes, the 2024 Oscars telecast will now begin one hour earlier than usual.  According to news from the Academy on Thursday, the ceremonies will begin at 7 pm ET/4PM PT on March 1o, 2024.

That is an hour shift when the broadcast usually begins at 8 pm ET/5pm PT.  The official pre-show will also begin earlier, at 6:30 p.m. ET.

The 96th Academy Awards will be held at the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles with nominations being announced on January 23rd.

Photo: ABC

A few weeks ago on November 15th, Jimmy Kimmel was officially named the host of the Oscars for the fourth time. The hosting gig marks the second year in a row for Kimmel. The comedian also hosted in 2017 and 2018.

Kimmel’s wife Molly McNearney will also one again, co-write and executive produce, the telecast.  In a statement on presiding over movies biggest night of the year, Kimmel joked, “I always dreamed of hosting the Oscars exactly four times.”

Photo: JPI

ABC also plans on airing a special episode of their hit comedy Abbott Elementary, immediately following what should be a three-and-a-half hour telecast of the Oscars.

So, what do you think about the time shift with the Oscars starting an hour earlier? Happy about it? Won’t be settled in at that early time slot to sit and watch the show? Comment below.

Continue Reading

Video Du Jour

Peter Reckell returns for a second visit with Michael Fairman following the wrap-up of his recent run as Bo Brady on Days of our Lives.Leave A Comment

Recent Comments

Power Performance

Kim Coles as Whitley

Days of our Lives

Airdate: 7-24- 2023