Roseanne/The Conners

Discuss TV shows old and new.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Fiery Angel
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:59 pm

Re: Roseanne

#51 Post by Fiery Angel » Tue May 29, 2018 6:01 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 5:37 pm
Apparently the conservative response is rallying to get Bill Maher fired.

That'd be awesome.
Why would that be awesome?

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Roseanne

#52 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Tue May 29, 2018 6:34 pm

He's an out-of-date sexist hack who can't help himself being smug every week on his show, the best part of which is the roundtable discussion he routinely stops so he can do more of his hacky (yes I'm using that word twice, to underline how much of one he is) bits.

User avatar
Dead or Deader
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 12:47 am

Re: Roseanne

#53 Post by Dead or Deader » Tue May 29, 2018 7:06 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 6:34 pm
He's an out-of-date sexist hack who can't help himself being smug every week on his show, the best part of which is the roundtable discussion he routinely stops so he can do more of his hacky (yes I'm using that word twice, to underline how much of one he is) bits.

What's so infuriating about Maher schtick is that smugness makes him think he's the smartest man in the room, and no one could challenge his views even when they are as bitterly wrong as vaccination. When someone with a different background comes onto his show he'll make a lazy jab that he thinks is so clever and genius. I watch that recent interview with Ethan Hawke and made a jab about his faith that hasn't already been told by your average Reddit edgeload.

Bill Maher is the prototype of the brogressive, a privilege white male who likes to proud himself as being forward-thinker who come backwards when it comes to issues such as women right's and the minority community. If the Republican Party wasn't filled of bible-thumpers who hate marijuana you find many of Maher ilk to be more sympathetic and even supportive of conservative policies.

User avatar
Donald Brown
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:21 pm
Location: a long the riverrun

Re: Roseanne

#54 Post by Donald Brown » Tue May 29, 2018 8:05 pm

One shouldn't neglect to mention Maher's relentless Islamophobia when discussing his many foul qualities.

Werewolf by Night

Roseanne

#55 Post by Werewolf by Night » Tue May 29, 2018 8:12 pm

Great, now she’s a “too wild for TV” martyr again. I can hear all the MAGAs already: She’s Lady Trump! She tells it like it is! Roseanne for Senator!

I do feel sorry for all the otherwise decent people she just put out of work with her idiotic tweeting.
Last edited by Werewolf by Night on Tue May 29, 2018 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Roseanne

#56 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Tue May 29, 2018 8:12 pm

Donald Brown wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 8:05 pm
One shouldn't neglect to mention Maher's relentless Islamophobia when discussing his many foul qualities.
And letting Anne Coulter take center stage when she's on his show. I'm sure if Tomi Lahren was still a free agent he'd be drooling all over to get her on.

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Roseanne

#57 Post by Big Ben » Tue May 29, 2018 8:18 pm

Don't worry guys I'm sure the New York Times will giver her an Op-Ed.

User avatar
Luke M
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm

Re: Roseanne

#58 Post by Luke M » Tue May 29, 2018 10:47 pm

Werewolf by Night wrote: I do feel sorry for all the otherwise decent people she just put out of work with her idiotic tweeting.
Aside from the crew who are just trying to make rent, no love lost for the producers or cast. They knew what they were signing up for.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Roseanne

#59 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Tue May 29, 2018 10:51 pm

Bill O'Reilly praised ABC's decision. If a man tweeted those things out, he would have stayed out of it surely. If anything else, this clarifies to me that he hates women with the heat of a thousand suns.

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Roseanne

#60 Post by Big Ben » Tue May 29, 2018 11:26 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:
Tue May 29, 2018 10:51 pm
Bill O'Reilly praised ABC's decision. If a man tweeted those things out, he would have stayed out of it surely. If anything else, this clarifies to me that he hates women with the heat of a thousand suns.
Image

McCrutchy
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am
Location: East Coast, USA

Re: Roseanne

#61 Post by McCrutchy » Wed May 30, 2018 12:18 am

More than anything, I'm just surprised that ABC / Carsey-Werner didn't have Roseanne Barr on an extremely tight leash as the namesake of their cash cow. As someone who has suffered with depression, I really wouldn't be surprised to learn that Barr is legitimately mentally ill, and I think it would explain some of her more infamous antisocial behavior. For example, I believe I've read before about her becoming difficult once she has been in the spotlight for a while, and now, here she was, arguably more "powerful" than ever, and she just goes and sabotages herself, along with the careers of several other actors and crew who believed they had a stable job for at least another year. Obviously, her rant was inexcusable, and ABC had no choice but to cancel the show, really, but since this was always a legitimate concern with Barr, I have to wonder if the studios, especially Carsey-Werner, who should have been extra wary of Barr's temperament given their association with scandal-plagued Bill Cosby, aren't kicking themselves for not demanding that Barr turn over her social media to them.

Since Barr just cost Carsey-Werner and ABC* dearly with one disgraceful tweet, I wonder if and when we're going to start seeing studios clamp down regarding talent on social media, perhaps even to the point of hiring people to manage the social media accounts of big stars directly, and prevent them from posting anything controversial.

As for the show, I liked the original run, and I thought the revival was good, even though Barr was clearly a bit shaky and Roseanne was a bit clunky as a result. It was pretty amazing how much of the cast slipped right back in to their characters, especially Goodman, Gilbert and Metcalf, although the decision to enlarge the family with so many kids could potentially have been very cumbersome had the series continued. And you have to marvel at Estelle Parsons returning to the role of Beverly (Roseanne and Jackie's mother) at the age of 90.

I've seen suggestions that they kill off Roseanne, re-title the show and go on with the other characters, and I would be all for it, as a way to hit Barr where it hurts by taking "her" show away from her. But frankly, I don't think that would work, since so much of the show was built around reacting to Roseanne. Although, perhaps everyone could reunite for some kind of one-off special at Roseanne's funeral, but this might be too distasteful.

In any event, I'm sad to see an enjoyable show gone, and I'm disappointed to see what has become of Roseanne Barr. I'm sure many of us envisaged something like this, but it's a shame that it actually happened.

*I know supposedly Disney doesn't care that much, and I've seen it spun already that the cancellation won't hurt ABC that much, but I don't buy the latter point for a second. I saw that ABC will be out an estimated $60 million in as revenue, as well as a chunk of the country that would have tuned in to a second season. Of course, the fallout from not cancelling the series may indeed have been worse for ABC financially, but still, I wonder how they'll attempt to make it up the hole left from the show.

User avatar
Polybius
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: Rollin' down Highway 41

Re: Roseanne

#62 Post by Polybius » Wed May 30, 2018 12:31 am

McCrutchy wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 12:18 am
I really wouldn't be surprised to learn that Barr is legitimately mentally ill
I've suspected that for a long time.

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Roseanne

#63 Post by Big Ben » Wed May 30, 2018 12:34 am

I confess I find the decision by ABC to do this more of a "way out" sort of deal as they made a conscious effort to get on board with this in the first place. This feels to me like a "We'll make a profit off this and hope her bullshit doesn't become unbankable" sort of deal. The moment she became a liability it was over which in my mind says as much a lot about ABC. This stuff didn't just show up at the 11th hour as she's been doing this stuff for years. Oh and here's the kicker. She's back on Twitter liking Anti-Muslim conspiracy tweets against the woman she called an ape this morning.

Now, if Roseanne is indeed suffering from a mental illness I hope she seeks treatment. She can certainly afford it.

User avatar
Lost Highway
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:41 am
Location: Berlin, Germany

Re: Roseanne

#64 Post by Lost Highway » Wed May 30, 2018 8:10 am

She is already back on Twitter retweeting that anti-Semitic George Soros conspiracy theory.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Roseanne

#65 Post by domino harvey » Wed May 30, 2018 8:44 am

She's also blaming Ambien for her post. She's amazingly learned not a thing from this experience

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Roseanne

#66 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Wed May 30, 2018 10:46 am

Further proof she's got some problems upstairs.

While I think cancellation was a good move, I'm not really a fan of the idea that various streaming services are going to take down not only the new episodes but the entirety of the old show down either. It's bad enough that the cast and crew who won't bounce back from this are out of a job, but that move punishes the people responsible for that show's success too. It's a scaredy-cat response to what's happening, that could have collateral damage to those who really don't deserve it.

connor
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:03 pm

Re: Roseanne

#67 Post by connor » Wed May 30, 2018 11:15 am

If I recall, she bought into the 1980s/early 90s "recovered memory" hysteria and from there accused both of her parents of sexually abusing her as a child, only to recant later.

So, another one in the "she's legit mentally unwell" column.

User avatar
Brian C
I hate to be That Pedantic Guy but...
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Roseanne

#68 Post by Brian C » Wed May 30, 2018 11:24 am

flyonthewall2983 wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 10:46 am
Further proof she's got some problems upstairs.

While I think cancellation was a good move, I'm not really a fan of the idea that various streaming services are going to take down not only the new episodes but the entirety of the old show down either. It's bad enough that the cast and crew who won't bounce back from this are out of a job, but that move punishes the people responsible for that show's success too. It's a scaredy-cat response to what's happening, that could have collateral damage to those who really don't deserve it.
I agree. In fact, I think I would have been more hesitant to cancel the new show over this. I'm not defending and I won't defend her comments in any way, shape, or form, but I also don't like putting people out of work over this - and I don't just mean the other actors/crew, but Roseanne herself. And I'm also not entirely sure that making her a martyr over this is helpful from a social justice perspective.

Generally speaking, I think the best way to react to incidents like this is to roll one's eyes at how stupid and obnoxious the speaker is, and then move on with our lives. The need to make every stray comment from an entertainer - even the really egregious ones - a huge big fucking deal is extremely tiresome and probably counterproductive besides. Roseanne's an idiot - this has been apparent for some time - so OK, the world can just about move on now. If people stop watching her show over this, that's all good and well, and if the show dies a natural death because of it, well, fair's fair. But now she wins either way, because she's a cause celebre on the right, and everyone else associated with the show gets screwed.

User avatar
furbicide
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:52 am

Re: Roseanne

#69 Post by furbicide » Wed May 30, 2018 11:35 am

flyonthewall2983 wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 10:46 am
Further proof she's got some problems upstairs.

While I think cancellation was a good move, I'm not really a fan of the idea that various streaming services are going to take down not only the new episodes but the entirety of the old show down either. It's bad enough that the cast and crew who won't bounce back from this are out of a job, but that move punishes the people responsible for that show's success too. It's a scaredy-cat response to what's happening, that could have collateral damage to those who really don't deserve it.
I think it's much worse than that. This kind of practice basically makes continued employment + creative production conditional on what one says or does outside of their working hours, which – when you remove the specific context of a racist Tweet – is kind of terrifying, really. One may not feel particularly inclined to feel sympathy for Barr given her political sympathies and the vileness of what she wrote, but rest assured that this kind of knee-jerk erasure won't be (and indeed hasn't been) limited to those expressing racist sentiments. Pretty much anyone who is seen as being too far out of the Overton window, including progressives, is capable of falling victim to these policies. And regardless, we should ask why we would so readily allow unelected, purely profit-oriented corporations to decide the boundaries of acceptable speech.

There's some irony in the fact that Barr has fallen victim to what (in my view) should be broadly considered a major labour rights issue, and yet spends most of her free time spruiking for a president who is doing everything he can to undermine workers' rights – double irony, in that Barr's character was (at least, once upon a time) written as pro-worker. I doubt, however, that she'd nowadays have the insight to pick up on what's happened to her here and the broader power issues that it reflects.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Roseanne

#70 Post by tenia » Wed May 30, 2018 11:44 am

There is such a thing as "bad buzz is still buzz", but still, I'm not sure Barr is going to emerge positively from this as a "cause celebre on the right".
This being written, I don't understand what the old show has done to be taken down too. If it was problematic, or if it now looks as problematic, OK, but I didn't understand that, and it just seems like amalgaming what Barr has written in 2018 with a 30 years old show.
furbicide wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 11:35 am
There's some irony in the fact that Barr has fallen victim to what (in my view) should be broadly considered a major labour rights issue, and yet spends most of her free time spruiking for a president who is doing everything he can to undermine workers' rights – double irony, in that Barr's character was (at least, once upon a time) written as pro-worker.
This is what struck me most here.

User avatar
furbicide
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:52 am

Re: Roseanne

#71 Post by furbicide » Wed May 30, 2018 11:57 am

It's a sort of guilt by association process, isn't it? Everything the transgressor has touched needs to be wiped. There's nothing particularly unusual about that nowadays, sadly.

connor
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:03 pm

Re: Roseanne

#72 Post by connor » Wed May 30, 2018 12:02 pm

furbicide wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 11:35 am
flyonthewall2983 wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 10:46 am
Further proof she's got some problems upstairs.

While I think cancellation was a good move, I'm not really a fan of the idea that various streaming services are going to take down not only the new episodes but the entirety of the old show down either. It's bad enough that the cast and crew who won't bounce back from this are out of a job, but that move punishes the people responsible for that show's success too. It's a scaredy-cat response to what's happening, that could have collateral damage to those who really don't deserve it.
I think it's much worse than that. This kind of practice basically makes continued employment + creative production conditional on what one says or does outside of their working hours, which – when you remove the specific context of a racist Tweet – is kind of terrifying, really. One may not feel particularly inclined to feel sympathy for Barr given her political sympathies and the vileness of what she wrote, but rest assured that this kind of knee-jerk erasure won't be (and indeed hasn't been) limited to those expressing racist sentiments. Pretty much anyone who is seen as being too far out of the Overton window, including progressives, is capable of falling victim to these policies. And regardless, we should ask why we would so readily allow unelected, purely profit-oriented corporations to decide the boundaries of acceptable speech.

There's some irony in the fact that Barr has fallen victim to what (in my view) should be broadly considered a major labour rights issue, and yet spends most of her free time spruiking for a president who is doing everything he can to undermine workers' rights – double irony, in that Barr's character was (at least, once upon a time) written as pro-worker. I doubt, however, that she'd nowadays have the insight to pick up on what's happened to her here and the broader power issues that it reflects.
Well-said. And although there's zero-excuse for this racist crap and wealthy Roseanne is hardly a "vulnerable worker," it does represent our new neoliberal norm where we're always "on the clock and on the job." And let's not forget that the writers room seems to be almost entirely left-wing and what they got on the air is a kind of working-class leftist politics almost never seen on network television, where everyone seems to be rich but, somehow, "just regular middle class folks." Plus the cast--many of whom were returning from years of obscurity and almost certain financial struggles--seem to hold pretty mainstream liberal views.

A television show, even the creative parts, are never the work of a single person. Imagine being employed by Roseanne, seeing this as a chance to write about the reality of working class lives in our contemporary oligarchy, then having all your hard work literally deleted from streaming services because of your psycho boss's tweet.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Roseanne

#73 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Wed May 30, 2018 12:17 pm

Going back to the ruckus she caused in the 90's, it's ironic that one person who seems to have come out of it smelling like roses (depending on how you look at it anyway) now is Tom Arnold. He was on that sports show in the early 2000's and I remember him as consistently being funny on it, he had a decent dramatic role in 2005's Happy Endings and is now working with Vice on a show called The Hunt For The Trump Tapes, the sole purpose of which is uncovering incriminating evidence Arnold knows he has against Trump.
Last edited by flyonthewall2983 on Thu May 31, 2018 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Roseanne

#74 Post by tenia » Wed May 30, 2018 12:46 pm

furbicide wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 11:57 am
It's a sort of guilt by association process, isn't it? Everything the transgressor has touched needs to be wiped. There's nothing particularly unusual about that nowadays, sadly.
It's not unusual, indeed, but I guessed I never really understood the need for it, and such an example makes it even more glaringly strange.

User avatar
Luke M
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm

Re: Roseanne

#75 Post by Luke M » Wed May 30, 2018 1:19 pm

In the future, they’ll wipe our memories so that the product appears to never have existed.

Post Reply