Roseanne

..and why not?
User avatar
Insouciant Western People
Posts: 24653
Joined: 23 Jul 2003, 13:31
Location: The pit of propaganda

Re: Roseanne

Postby Insouciant Western People » 11 Apr 2018, 15:15

Rayge wrote:It wasn't just Goodman who was a tremendous actor; Sara Gilbert, Laurie Metcalfe, Johnny Galecki


All very enjoyable in Big Bang Theory too.

Sarah Chalke (the second actress to play Becky Connor) went on to be very funny as Elliot in Scrubs.
Jeff K wrote:Nick's still the man! No one has been as consistent as he has been over such a long period of time.

User avatar
Dr Markus
Posts: 17670
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Roseanne

Postby Dr Markus » 13 Apr 2018, 11:38

Watched the first two shows last night. I thought it funny. Politics aside, the banter was funny. The shows leans right, there's no getting away from that, but like the handling of "Mark" I think it showed and admitted the faults from both sides (Left/Right) which I think it should be given credit for. Ultimately, what made "Mark" happy won out. Dan admitting that he was stuck in the past and is having great problems with the modern world, but knows he can't do much about it said a lot. I'm looking forward to watching the next episode.
Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvinist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23619
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: Roseanne

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 15 Apr 2018, 08:42

It’s shitty - and not just because of the politics. It just feels bullshitty. Gender fluid grandchild...check. African/American grandchild...check. Girl who is “just like Darlene”...check.

I don’t buy any of it. Plus...it’s not particularly funny.

As for the politics. Don’t get me started. You know what you never heard in the original series? I’ll tell you: You never heard who anybody voted for. No kitchen table fights about G.H.W. Bush vs. Clinton. No Willie Horton jokes. No bon-mots about the contract with America.

Nope. The old show didn’t need to pander to the press by giving them an angle like, “of course Roseanne is a Ross Perot voter.” It made its points by simply showing a sitcom version of a blue collar family that defied a few stereotypes here and there.

But now it’s whatever this piece of shit is. If you watch it...you deserve it.
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
Dr Markus
Posts: 17670
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Roseanne

Postby Dr Markus » 15 Apr 2018, 17:07

:(
Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvinist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model

User avatar
pcqgod
Posts: 16859
Joined: 11 Apr 2010, 07:23
Location: Texas

Re: Roseanne

Postby pcqgod » 15 Apr 2018, 17:23

Tried watching it back in the day and I didn't care for it.
Where would rock 'n' roll be without feedback?

User avatar
sneelock
Posts: 11692
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: Roseanne

Postby sneelock » 16 Apr 2018, 02:20

I liked it well enough. I doubt if I’ve seen half of all the episodes they’ve made but I’ve certainly watched quite a few.
I’ve only watched episode three of the new series — Darlene’s daughter gets on Roseanne’s nerves. To me, it felt like the show never left - that I just hadn’t watched it for a while.

Yeah, there are elements of the show that are hard to swallow but I think that’s always been the case. I mean, Dan would have run away with a waitress at the Dairy Queen or something over 10 years ago. Don’t you think? He still seems to adore Roseanne. If you can buy that then you can buy just about anything.

Which brings me to John Goodman. I’d say, from the episode I watched, him and the gal who plays Darlene are the show’s strengths. If I come back for more then they will be much of the reason. Goodman seems to just love being Dan Conner. He’s a very engaging actor and his steadfastness (unrealistic though it may be) I think it gives the show a lot of much needed heart.

Darlene is where the drama of the episode I watched was centered. Yeah, drama. That’s the thing about Roseanne - it’s a comedy but there are elements of soap opera and Darlene seems to be the most surprising story arc. She’s not as confident and self centered. In fact, she seems really pretty much a wreck in a lot of ways. She states that shes’ there to support the family but it seems like they have something Darlene needs emotionally.

Okay, Roseanne. The episode I watched got a little press for perceived cultural insensitivity and borderline child abuse. Roseanne remarks that TV’s black and Asian families are “just like us” and wrestles Darlene’s teen down to douse her in the kitchen sink. In all honesty, those things didn’t bother me but grabbing the teenager did surprise me. The only political thing that I really rankled at was Roseanne bitching about millennials and how “PC” they are making everything. As Davey mentioned in his diss - the show seems very studiously to be aiming for “PC” qualities itself. This is having your cake and eating it too but TV shows are known to do that.

I think Roseanne being an Uber driver seems to make more sense than her running a “loose meat” restaurant did. I thought it was pretty funny. Jackie was pretty much wasted in the episode I saw but Dan & Darlene were engaging and Roseanne was unpredictable.

I get that boiling TRUMP’S America down to “jobs” is a pretty dishonest thing to do. I suspect some of the more on the nose episodes will bother me more than this one did. While I enjoyed it and got some laughs I do see why people are holding the reboot up to the light. In the original run they did not shy away from topical issues. “TRUMP promised jobs” is maybe a topical issue but it seems a pretty shy take.
Jimbo wrote: I'm assuming it's bullshit.

User avatar
take5_d_shorterer
Posts: 5742
Joined: 22 Sep 2003, 23:09
Location: photo. by Andor Kertesz, Hung.

Re: Roseanne

Postby take5_d_shorterer » 16 Apr 2018, 02:55

Dr Markus wrote:Apparently they're doing a "Dallas" and John Goodman's character never died.


Of course. That was "fake news".

User avatar
sneelock
Posts: 11692
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: Roseanne

Postby sneelock » 16 Apr 2018, 06:30

sneelock wrote:The episode I watched got a little press for perceived cultural insensitivity...In all honesty, those things didn’t bother me ..


This did bother TV writer Kelvin Yu who wrote a very good piece in the New York Times explaining why.
Jimbo wrote: I'm assuming it's bullshit.

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23619
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: Roseanne

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 16 Apr 2018, 07:29

My wife had the most recent episode on, and it was better than the abysmal first two episodes. But it still has these cringeworthy moments dotted within it in which Rosanne just has to decry cultural liberalism.

Fuck her.
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
Geezee
Posts: 12301
Joined: 24 Jul 2003, 10:14
Location: Where joy divides into vision

Re: Roseanne

Postby Geezee » 16 Apr 2018, 10:06

Charlie O. wrote:Didn't see the show (and likely won't), but this is a thoughtful critique:

The ‘Roseanne’ Reboot Is Funny. I’m Not Going to Keep Watching.


The below section is particularly important i think in how Trump voters try to distinguish who they voted for versus how they treat people in real life. It's the old "I have plenty of black/gay/hispanic/etc friends" argument. There will be plenty of people who look at an episode like that on Roseanne and nod their heads and say "see, this is exactly how i feel". It just further reinforces and justifies the hatred. I really struggle with the same topic, not so much in how I select the entertainment I watch, but rather in how I approach social media and daily interactions, with friends who are Trump voters etc. It's very hard to draw the line.

I could not overlook how the Conner family came together to support Mark as he was bullied at school for his gender presentation, after voting for a president who actively works against the transgender community. They voted for a president who doesn’t think the black life of their granddaughter matters. They act as if love can protect the most vulnerable members of their family from the repercussions of their political choices. It cannot.
Smilies are ON
Flash is OFF
Url is ON

User avatar
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 32148
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Re: Roseanne

Postby Goat Boy » 16 Apr 2018, 11:01

I really liked Roseanne growing up but lost track long before the end. The whole final season seemed so silly but at its best there was something really refreshing and earthy about the show, especially compared to most US imports.

The new one sounds like a bit of a tickbox exercise but one designed to illustrate how progressive Trump voters are. I had no idea Roseanne in real life had fallen down the rabbit hole. I’d always assumed she was left leaning but probably not a Democrat.
Griff wrote:The notion that Jeremy Corbyn, a lifelong vocal proponent of antisemitism, would stand in front of an antisemitic mural and commend it is utterly preposterous.


Copehead wrote:we have lost touch with anything normal

User avatar
pcqgod
Posts: 16859
Joined: 11 Apr 2010, 07:23
Location: Texas

Re: Roseanne

Postby pcqgod » 04 May 2018, 17:52

Now Roseanne is Twitter-feuding with Stormy Daniels. :lol:
Where would rock 'n' roll be without feedback?

User avatar
sneelock
Posts: 11692
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: Roseanne

Postby sneelock » 04 May 2018, 18:45

Stormy told R, in so many words, that judging Stormy's porn career by her anal is like judging R's career by her rendition of the National Anthem.:lol:
I believe this is what the oldsters mean when they say somebody got PWND.
Jimbo wrote: I'm assuming it's bullshit.

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23619
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: Roseanne

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 14 May 2018, 15:29

Ugh. Now the Connors have Muslim neighbors! Hilarity is sure to ensue.

Look out Norman Lear. Roseanne Barr is coming for you. :roll:
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
Dr Markus
Posts: 17670
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Roseanne

Postby Dr Markus » 14 May 2018, 16:39

Does it have ANY genuine redeemable features/feature?
Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvinist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23619
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: Roseanne

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 14 May 2018, 19:35

Dr Markus wrote:Does it have ANY genuine redeemable features/feature?


Sure. John Goodman. Lori Metcalf. Sara Gilbert. Even Rosanne, when she’s not trying to “take on sacred cows.”
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
Dr Markus
Posts: 17670
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Roseanne

Postby Dr Markus » 14 May 2018, 19:38

Davey the Fat Boy wrote:
Dr Markus wrote:Does it have ANY genuine redeemable features/feature?


Sure. John Goodman. Lori Metcalf. Sara Gilbert. Even Rosanne, when she’s not trying to “take on sacred cows.”


If they shouldn't be taking on the "sacred cows", what should they be doing?
Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvinist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23619
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: Roseanne

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 14 May 2018, 22:32

Dr Markus wrote:
Davey the Fat Boy wrote:
Dr Markus wrote:Does it have ANY genuine redeemable features/feature?


Sure. John Goodman. Lori Metcalf. Sara Gilbert. Even Rosanne, when she’s not trying to “take on sacred cows.”


If they shouldn't be taking on the "sacred cows", what should they be doing?


It isn’t that they shouldn’t take on sacred cows. It is that they aren’t particularly good at it this go-around. The show wants credit for “going there” - but thus far it doesn’t have anything incisive to say when they get “there”.
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
Dr Markus
Posts: 17670
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Roseanne

Postby Dr Markus » 14 May 2018, 23:55

Thought they've been trying to be realistic when they "go there". Not always succesfull, but trying.
Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvinist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23619
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: Roseanne

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 15 May 2018, 07:17

Dr Markus wrote:Thought they've been trying to be realistic when they "go there". Not always succesfull, but trying.


It’s a sitcom. Realism doesn’t really enter into it. If a sitcom is going to delve into issues, it ought to have an interesting take on them.
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image