JUST SAY NO

Memo to ABC: ‘Roseanne’ is gone. Time to move on

ABC would like to think there can be a “Roseanne” without Roseanne Barr.

But that’s a very bad idea. Almost as soon as “Roseanne” was axed last week — following Barr’s racist tweet about Valerie Jarrett — word leaked out from Hollywood that ABC, nervous about letting its cash cow go unmilked, is thinking of saving the show by bringing it back without Barr but with its other co-stars, including John Goodman, Laurie Metcalf and Sara Gilbert (who also executive-produced the short-lived ratings bonanza).

According to reports, ABC is contractually committed to paying Goodman, Metcalf and Gilbert (who’d reportedly negotiated their per-episode salaries from $250,000 to $300,000), since the actors’ options for next season were officially exercised — meaning that, in effect, the network would be paying the trio a combined $12 million for a non-existent show.

Now, ABC reportedly plans to consider potential “spinoff ” ideas of the show (from which Barr would not benefit, financially). It’s a scenario that’s gained some traction in the past few days.

But that’s a doomsday scenario, and here’s why: when a TV series is structured around one character, and that character is gone like a puff of smoke, then there’s no show.

Just look at other recent series whose principal character was removed, also forcibly, from the narrative.

“Transparent” tried to carry on without its Emmywinning star, Jeffrey Tambor, after he was fired for allegations of sexual harassment. A fifth season went into production without Tambor before series creator Jill Soloway announced that “Transparent” would end after Season 5 on Amazon (expected to premiere next year).

“House of Cards” similarly tried to save face after letting Kevin Spacey go when he was accused of sexual harassment. Eight episodes for the show’s upcoming sixth season were written, focusing on Robin Wright as President Claire Underwood — and then wrapped the show for good. Is anyone even going to care?

In the past — and under considerably less scandalous circumstances — losing a lead character didn’t necessarily mean the end of a show, but still ...

Television historians point to “The Hogan

Family” as one example of a show being retooled after the departure of its top-billed actor. Valerie Harper left the series, about a woman juggling career and motherhood, two seasons into its run, after a dispute with producers. Enter Sandy Duncan, who played the children’s aunt. The show was retooled, given a new title and ran for a few more unmemorable seasons.

But that was a long time ago, when a celebrity’s brand was not so crucial to a show’s success or ratings.

Besides, the main reason “Roseanne” was revived was because its star was willing to give it a go. Had Barr said no, we wouldn’t have seen the nine episodes ABC aired this spring, nor the 13 new episodes it planned to air starting this fall. And, love her or hate her, Barr is a lightning rod — so without her presence a “Roseanne” spinoff would lack its main spark.

Even if ABC were to greenlight a “spinoff ” — in other words, a consolation prize for the viewers — what exactly would the network call the show? “Life Without Roseanne”? “Anybody Seen Roseanne”? “Darlene”? The idea itself is so absurd it invites ridicule. ABC is going to have to honor its contractual commitments to the cast, cut its losses and move on.

End of story.