Troy Stiffler

This is part of why I suspect it was a pre-determined decision. If I had to guess, she was warned by execs at the highest levels. And it may have even been in the contracts. So she didn't do what she agreed to, and there was a kill switch to shut everything down. Maybe she thought they were bluffing, or she had the power because of the high ratings.

I don't know how anyone could watch The Cosby Show (outside of a MST3K style viewing) knowing what we know now.

Bluelitespecial

I don’t have any desire to watch The Cosby Show or 7th Heaven ever again. I have no problem watching Seinfeld or any Mel Gibson movie. I’m just trying to say most people can separate some bad behavior of an actor if they enjoy their tv show or movie.

Breakfast with Girls

To all the people in this thread commenting about how this is an overreaction:

Just stop.

I can't even believe I have to say this, but there has to be a line. She literally called a black woman an ape. If that's not the line, what is? There have to be consequences for actions.

As for the argument that Trump says whatever he wants and gets away with it, it's call the Overton window, and you're contributing to Trump shifting public discourse from the previously-unthinkable to the now-acceptable. By saying this is an overreaction and citing Trump, you are part the problem. Again: stop it.

Breakfast with Girls

Morality clauses are standard in acting contracts, but yeah, I would guess you're absolutely right.

JackoOnHisBacko

How far down on the evolutionary scale is Roseanne Barr, that an "ape-women" is far more intelligent, eloquent, decent, and caring than the woman that is attacking her? And yet, Trump will lose no voters over this. Scary.

Sonic

This Roseanne controversy does not shock me. It's happened before already in the same grounds:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/12/medi...ama/index.html

As you can see this is the 2nd time already, same type of racist incident. The question is, who is gonna be the next white racist to call another black person a planet of the apes?

grundle

Josh-da-man

1. It's also on ABC.
2. They're women.
3. They don't kiss god emperor's ass.

dvdjunkie32

I was really curious to hear John Goodman's take on the whole mess. He is doing the right thing, just keeping his nose out of it. He also stays off twitter. Just pure class. He is one of those celebrities that you never hear anything bad about.

https://people.com/tv/john-goodman-r...-cancellation/

Throwing Copper

The NFL owners will just take the fine. The NFL with only white players would be a disaster. And boring to watch.

grundle

Roseanne is already super rich. This cancellation will have zero impact on her standard of living.

The people who worked on the show behind the scenes are the ones who will be hurt.

And millions of people will be deprived of being able to watch the syndicated reruns.

I'll keep watching my DVDs of the first five seasons, just like I'll keep watching my DVDs of the first two seasons of The Cosby Show.

I wonder if the same people who support this cancellation and stopping the reruns have also stopped listening to the Beatles since it was revealed that John Lennon was a wife beater.

A person can be really good at one thing (creating movies, music, or TV shows) and simultaneously be really bad at another thing (being a racist, or a wife-beater). Since we live in a highly technological society with very high levels of specialization, I personally think it would be irrational to stop eating my favorite candy just because it turned out that the CEO of the candy company had murdered his family. But I respect the rights of other who disagree with me, i.e., those who would stop eating the candy because of that.

fujishig

So your feeling is, as long as the person is talented enough they should be able to keep their job and we should just turn a blind eye because hey, there are other people depending on them? This isn't the case of a CEO of a candy company, this is the founder and creator of the candy company with the candy named after them, who will continue to make loads of money if you keep buying their candy. Yeah I'd probably boycott that as well.

xraybies

There's an article in the LA Times that states Disney had no choice but to cut ties with Roseanne considering that her show made $40 million in advertising this past season but Disney's biggest money maker so far is Black Panther at $1.8 billion and they couldn't take a chance on jeopardizing that. Makes sense when you consider what a drop in the bucket Roseanne is compared to their other properties.

Noonan

Yeah; 40m is nothing compared to what Disney could possibly lose if people started boycotting due to Roseanne's comments.

melasnus

This is the least surprising thing to come out of Hollywood in a long time...
Roseanne has been nuts from the very beginning and it always has landed her in hot water...simply look at her show-biz history.
What is "surprising" is why, knowing her history, ABC would even try restarting the show in the first place.
What's the definition of insanity again?
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?

Noonan

Roseanne was wildly popular in the initial run. Pretty sure they were hoping for the same results...

davidh777

First of all, I completely respect your right to enjoy whatever entertainment you want.

And yes, Roseanne will still have a lot of money, but I think it was appropriate for people to call her out regardless. And yes, I think we all have regrets for the cast and crew who got shafted here, but what's the alternative? Saying "we'll still give this person a platform because she makes money"? I'd rather see the cast and crew spend their time and efforts on a different show (and yes, I know jobs aren't simple to find).

I didn't watch the show, but I think one of the core problems is her playing a Trump supporter. It'd be like if all of John Lennon's songs were about beating his wife. Then yeah, I'd probably wouldn't listen to those songs.

eXcentris

Tom Arnold was on CNN last night:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/us/to...ntv/index.html

The last bit is just weird.

grundle

No, I didn't say we should "turn a blind eye." Criticizing her for what she said is one thing. Cancelling her TV show is something else. Because a person can be really good at one thing, and really bad at another thing.

grundle

All truly creative people are nuts.

Noonan

If you had an employee who said something publicly which could end up costing you a ton of money and horrible press to your company, would you keep them employed?

grundle

The alternative is to criticize her for her racist comment, and to let her continue making her awesome show. Because a person can be really good at one thing, and really bad at another thing.

Since you didn't watch the show, I'd love to hear what you (and anyone else here who does or doesn't watch her show) thinks of this:

grundle

If the employee is easily replaceable, then I would fire the employee.

If the employee was very difficult or impossible to replace, and their job was highly important to the success of my business, then I would keep the employee.

Noonan

Roseanne is not important to the success of Disney and I'm sure there are sitcom pilots they could pick up which don't star loud-mouthed racists.

eXcentris

Roseanne = 1/10 of 1% of revenue, about 45 mil.

Black Panther = 1.8 billion wordwide box office.

For a company riding the wave of black empowerment exemplified by the “Black Panther” storyline amid hopes of turning the film into a long-running franchise, hitching its wagon to a star who tweets that former Obama aide Valerie Jarrett, an African American, is the offspring of “Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes” simply did not compute.


Canceling 'Roseanne' may have been the easiest decision Disney ever made.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...530-story.html