Niku wrote:also you know all of these people were pretty cool with doing the show with roseanne being exactly who she was when they were cashing the checks the first time around so
It's not just that. It's that in order to get the rights to do a spinoff without her, they had to pay her off.
The New York Times wrote:Before ABC approved the spinoff, Ms. Barr and Werner Entertainment agreed on a financial settlement, according to a person briefed on recent discussions, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe negotiations that took place among the star, producers and executives. That person would not reveal the sum of the payment.
So, yeah -- she won't be receiving any ongoing profits from the new show, but ABC chose to pay her off so that they could continue to make it. They weren't just cool with doing the show knowing who she was; they were cool with writing her another check after firing her for saying racist shit.
The damage is already done, though, and she got paid whether the show succeeds or fails without her -- so on that metric, I guess I kinda hope it succeeds. That means the people who paid her off get rewarded for that choice, which I really don't like -- but it also means that the creative people on the show continue to get rewarded, and we get proof that the success of the new Roseanne series was not because of Roseanne the person.
Of course, if she had no rights WRT to the show, then your point stands.
My point is that they had the choice of not continuing the show. The options were "end the show" and "pay somebody who you just fired because she is a toxic human being"; they chose the latter.
And you can make a defense of that choice -- I've already said that I felt bad about the rest of the cast and crew losing their jobs because of something she did -- but I don't think there was any such altruistic motive in the ABC execs' minds. They paid Roseanne off because they had a profit incentive in doing so. And there's nothing noble or laudable about that.