Roseanne

..and why not?
User avatar
Dr Markus
Posts: 17670
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: Roseanne

Postby Dr Markus » 15 May 2018, 11:21

Davey the Fat Boy wrote:
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.


That doesn't make sense. They topics they cover are real and happening all over America.

How do you unrealistically approach
1. A grandson that wants to wear skirts to school aged ten and they're worried he's gonna get beat up? Not really caring about your own thoughts on the matter as long as he's safe
2. Your son, a war veteran, dealing with PTSD
3. Understanding while illegal immigration work for shitty money, that's why they get the jobs, but at the same time the Connors gotta work too.
4. Dealing with your own prejudice against Muslims.

I think they did have an interesting take on most of them, the take being, being realistic about the issue. For example, Yeah if the kid wants to wear a skirt to school, let him, but let him know the chances are he's gonna get bullied or beat up by some kids. If you had a boy that wanted to do the same, forgetting about it you agree with it or not, you'd be worried about his safety.
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: 23700
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: Roseanne

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 15 May 2018, 20:13

All of the issues you listed above are dealt with in a pretty shallow way. It isn’t that the concerns of the characters aren’t understandable in some way...but if you are going to choose to deal with gender nonconformity...what are you saying about it?

This show wants to look edgy by taking on big topics, but it doesn’t really explore them with any depth. Maybe they’ll deal with their grandsons’ identity over time. But thus far...is the worry about him being beaten up in school really the main issue?

More to the point...the show reflects a lot of Barr’s vapidity in how it deals with people who are “othered” by society. Roseanne rails at PC culture and laughs at tv shows about showing people of other races as “just like us.” But then offers no more than the same “just like us” platitudes when supposedly delving into “issues.” If she’s going to accuse the rest of the world of indulging in cliche...shouldn’t her show attempt to offer more?
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 May 2018, 20:55

I think you're expecting too much from this show davy. I think they're pretty much approaching topics like they did in the 90s. When DJ refused to play with a little black girl, it was covered and dealt with in 5 minutes. I think it was praised too for it. Some topics will be dealt with over a few episodes, but some topics don't need that.
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: 23700
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: Roseanne

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 16 May 2018, 01:36

Dr Markus wrote:I think you're expecting too much from this show davy. I think they're pretty much approaching topics like they did in the 90s. When DJ refused to play with a little black girl, it was covered and dealt with in 5 minutes. I think it was praised too for it. Some topics will be dealt with over a few episodes, but some topics don't need that.


I don’t think the 90’s show handled “issues” all that well either. But they didn’t have the same pretense of being “about” issues - which is essentially my argument.

The old show was about a family. Every once in a while the family was pushed to acknowledge someone different than themselves. But that was a small part of what the show was. Now the show thinks it is about “sacred cows” - and they’ve crammed it to the gills with lots of opportunities for the Connors to comment on our culture...something they don’t actually do well.

So great...Roseanne loves her African-American granddaughter and gender-fluid grandson. Wonderful. But nobody on the show is ever going to push her to account for the fact that she made a point of having voted to marginalize people like her grandchildren. Nor is she going to stop mocking anyone who suggests that we think about how we treat people like them. She acknowledges that people might beat them up at school - but they should just shut up until she decides they are individually worthy of caring about.
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 » 17 May 2018, 11:03

Davey the Fat Boy wrote:
I don’t think the 90’s show handled “issues” all that well either. But they didn’t have the same pretense of being “about” issues - which is essentially my argument.


Disagree with the first part, but you're probably right about they didn’t have the same pretense of being “about” issues

Davey the Fat Boy wrote:The old show was about a family. Every once in a while the family was pushed to acknowledge someone different than themselves. But that was a small part of what the show was. Now the show thinks it is about “sacred cows” - and they’ve crammed it to the gills with lots of opportunities for the Connors to comment on our culture...something they don’t actually do well.

Agreed

Davey the Fat Boy wrote:So great...Roseanne loves her African-American granddaughter and gender-fluid grandson. Wonderful. But nobody on the show is ever going to push her to account for the fact that she made a point of having voted to marginalize people like her grandchildren. Nor is she going to stop mocking anyone who suggests that we think about how we treat people like them. She acknowledges that people might beat them up at school - but they should just shut up until she decides they are individually worthy of caring about.


I think you're being too hard on them if i'm being honest. Especially the last sentence. If anything, the show is suggesting that you live your life the way you want, I might not agree with it, but it doesn't mean we just can't get on with each other regardless. Family member or not. I mean look at the people behind it, Whitney cummings, you're telling me she's right wing or a Trump supporter?
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: 23700
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: Roseanne

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 17 May 2018, 17:01

I suspect that the difference in our reactions to the show have something to do with the fact that you see “I might not agree with it, but it doesn't mean we just can't get on with each other regardless“ as a reasonable position to take regarding another’s identity and I don’t.
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 » 17 May 2018, 17:12

Davey the Fat Boy wrote:I suspect that the difference in our reactions to the show have something to do with the fact that you see “I might not agree with it, but it doesn't mean we just can't get on with each other regardless“ as a reasonable position to take regarding another’s identity and I don’t.


True, Fair enough.
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
Sneelock
Posts: 12085
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: Roseanne

Postby Sneelock » 17 May 2018, 17:26

I haven't watched very many but I certainly Like it more than Davey. still, I think his remarks are pretty fair.
the old show had lots of scenes of people knocking on Roseanne's door or coming up to her with politics and her sassing at them. she had a bullshit detector and didn't take any bullshit.

well, not only do I feel like something happened to HER b.s. detector - I think mine is working overtime. I love the cast and they still hire good writers. I think they are still making entertaining shows. however, her support of this president who calls places "shitholes" and people "animals" is emphasizing issues of diversity & inclusion that, in my opinion, have FUCK ALL to do with what that guy and his supporters are actually doing. it seems to me they are doing exactly the oppsite and in no small way. In fact, I think you could make a case that this is a sort of creative affirmative action that people who support that guy are really caring and progressive people. maybe some are? well, they would have to be blind to some pretty ghastly stuff but I suppose it could happen.

Not only do I think her b.s. detector is broke - I think she's selling a vision that some people want to have about themselves without really including or diversifying even a little bit. to sum up -- Intentional or not, I think this is a view of "Trump's America" that is fundamentally dishonest and makes people feel good about themselves for caring about things they don't really seem to care about based on what they do.

I like it because it's funny but I do occasionally detect the powerful & unmistakable odor of mendacity.
scan not a friend with a microscopic glass

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 12085
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: Roseanne

Postby Sneelock » 29 May 2018, 18:29

Wanda Sykes was in the writer's room for the new season. not anymore.
http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/29/media/r ... index.html
the fictional Roseanne Connor has a black grandchild. I hope the real Roseanne doesn't because she seems to like tweeting racist crap.
scan not a friend with a microscopic glass

User avatar
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 32470
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Re: Roseanne

Postby Goat Boy » 29 May 2018, 18:38

Christ
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
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 32470
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Re: Roseanne

Postby Goat Boy » 29 May 2018, 19:02

ABC have now cancelled the show
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
LeBaron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 42958
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: Roseanne

Postby LeBaron » 29 May 2018, 19:05

Goat Boy wrote:ABC have now cancelled the show


Perhaps Fox will pick it up!
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?

take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.

User avatar
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 32470
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Re: Roseanne

Postby Goat Boy » 29 May 2018, 19:09

:)
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
Sneelock
Posts: 12085
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: Roseanne

Postby Sneelock » 29 May 2018, 19:11

I read about the cancellation on the Variety website. I was looking at the comments. man, people can take time out of their day to say the damndest things.
scan not a friend with a microscopic glass

User avatar
Belle Lettre
Éminence grise
Posts: 15578
Joined: 09 Oct 2008, 07:16
Location: Antiterra

Re: Roseanne

Postby Belle Lettre » 29 May 2018, 19:16

Edit :Never mind- it was essentially the same article
Nikki Gradual wrote:
Get a fucking grip you narcissistic cretins.

User avatar
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 32470
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Re: Roseanne

Postby Goat Boy » 29 May 2018, 19:27

It's funny how Twitter can remove that part of your brain that tells you, "this might be a really bad idea fella...."

Shame for the rest of the cast and crew.
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
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 23700
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: Roseanne

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 29 May 2018, 19:36

Get ready for the PC backlash.
The opinions of this poster are subjective. That’s how opinions work.

Image

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 12085
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: Roseanne

Postby Sneelock » 29 May 2018, 19:38

Oh man, it’s already started. Look for things that start out “ I’m not racist but...”
scan not a friend with a microscopic glass

User avatar
Rayge
Posts: 13197
Joined: 14 Aug 2013, 11:37
Location: deepest Devon
Contact:

Re: Roseanne

Postby Rayge » 29 May 2018, 20:20

How many of those now bleating about the first amendment support the right of footballers and others to take the knee during the national dirge?
In timeless moments we live forever

You can't play a tune on an absolute

Negative Capability...when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact & reason”

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 52952
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Re: Roseanne

Postby Snarfyguy » 29 May 2018, 20:56

Keep in mind this isn't a First Amendment issue anyway.
Jimbo wrote:Look, all I know is pretty much what I get from Robert Parry over at Consortium News.