‘Roseanne’ Could Suffer Without Goodman’s Help

When ABC Entertainment President Ted Harbert described plans recently for yet another season of “Roseanne” - one without co-star John Goodman - he was painting a little too “Rosie” a picture.

“She’s very excited,” Harbert said of the title star of his “Roseanne” sitcom, by the prospect of exploring the “stories she can do about Roseanne and Jackie as single parents.” Besides, Harbert added, referring to Laurie Metcalf’s Emmy-winning portrayal of Roseanne’s sitcom sister Jackie, “Jackie has a lot more screen time than Dan.”

True enough, at least in recent seasons. But to downplay Goodman’s contributions to “Roseanne” or to minimize the possible adverse reaction to his absence is doing both the actor and the series a disservice.

After all, this isn’t like the sudden emergence and equally sudden disappearance of Tom Arnold, who rose to prominence on the series, married the star, got and lost a TV show and got a divorce.

This is about Goodman, who has been there from Day One on “Roseanne.” He’s the guy who gave the series a solid center while Roseanne learned to act, and he’s the guy who provided one of the best and most credible working-class TV marriages since Ralph and Alice Kramden on “The Honeymooners.”

Even though Goodman often is compared to Jackie Gleason, his end-of-season disappearance from “Roseanne,” in a way, can be seen from another perspective. Losing Goodman’s Dan Conner, in a way, is like losing Alice from “The Honeymooners.”

You could say that Art Carney’s Ed Norton has more screen time than Alice, and it’s true, but that doesn’t mean Alice is easily dispensed with. Neither, I suspect, is Goodman.