Who knows… it could work!

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!

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.

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!!!

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.

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!!!!

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.

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.

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”.