Edited: Roseanne reboot - BOOTED

This show could've been properly relevant in 2018: The Connors were struggling in the 80s / 90s. Economic disparity has only grown since then. Instead, Roseanne decided to go full racist (or finally show her latent racism) and screw up the message of her show about the economic struggle among of a family that dealt w/ money and health issues
 
Some of this could be in the Politically Incorrect forums, but she tweeted about how this wouldn't happen to a leftist. Kathy Griffith, anyone?

And they said this morning that even Roseanne's reruns were pulled. Wow. Those were on practically 24/7 somewhere - TVLand, Logo, etc.
 
I'm with those who think it was a knee-jerk reaction to cancel the whole show. Why not rename it as "The Conner Family" and continue without Rosanne? I'm sure talented writers could figure out some premise for her absence - maybe she flipped out and was put in a medical facility, causing more financial hassles for the family. Why should 100 other people lose their jobs because of the actions of one individual?
 
I'm with those who think it was a knee-jerk reaction to cancel the whole show. Why not rename it as "The Conner Family" and continue without Rosanne? I'm sure talented writers could figure out some premise for her absence - maybe she flipped out and was put in a medical facility, causing more financial hassles for the family. Why should 100 other people lose their jobs because of the actions of one individual?
ABC/Disney needed to respond quickly and seriously to Roseanne's behavior - which came as no surprise, really, but I guess it's finally crossed the line for them. But perhaps, as was the case with House of Cards, they will be able to come up with a way to continue production.
 
At the same time, this is a volatile business and shows get canceled all the time. ABC has no obligation to keep production going. I feel bad for the crew but the others who had more of a choice to choose their jobs knew they were getting in bed with the devil.
 
At the same time, this is a volatile business and shows get canceled all the time. ABC has no obligation to keep production going. I feel bad for the crew but the others who had more of a choice to choose their jobs knew they were getting in bed with the devil.

The better-known actors like Goodman, Gilbert and Metcalfe will be fine. The lesser-known ones got some exposure. The crew is union and I’m sure has to get some severance. Relative to the only factory closing in a small town, this isn’t a tragedy.

Roseanne is bipolar and on the edge of disaster most of the time. ABC took a chance and this is what they got.

Incidentally she is well-liked in Israel for her strident pro-Israel shtick. I’m doubly glad she’s off the air, all she did was empower the worst people here.
 
This show could've been properly relevant in 2018: The Connors were struggling in the 80s / 90s. Economic disparity has only grown since then. Instead, Roseanne decided to go full racist (or finally show her latent racism) and screw up the message of her show about the economic struggle among of a family that dealt w/ money and health issues

Except that "economic struggle" is often used as a cover for racist attitudes.

You could begin with the reemergence of the show and its star in its most general sense, which paralleled Donald Trump’s emergence and popularity almost exactly. “Roseanne” the show was a reboot of the kitschy 1990s-era franchise and was freshly celebrated for bravely uplifting the views of a “real America.” (That America is white and working-class, naturally, and apparently underrepresented — if “underrepresented” means the same thing as “the subject of incessant media coverage.”) On the show, Roseanne thinks all Muslims are terrorists and her husband calls immigrants “illegals.” But she’s not really a racist, we’re told, and he’s just economically anxious. Sound familiar?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...d678ec08c2f_story.html?utm_term=.3fc6bd0cb1b4
 
Except that "economic struggle" is often used as a cover for racist attitudes.

I'd be interested in your further thoughts on this statement because I don't understand it. I see economic struggle and racism as two different things, that I guess can overlap, but "often used as a cover"? I don't understand what you mean.

As for the article, thanks for the link, I find it's similar to what's been said about the show since it returned - people who hated everything about it before it even started continued to do so (often without even watching it, or watching it selectively), and people who had some positive memory of its first incarnation liked the idea, and continued to like it.

This article shows a clear bias toward the former - never liked it, never would - with its odd references and edited-to-make-a-point examples. When was the show ever "kitschy"? When was it celebrated for uplifting the views of real America, because I remember it more then, and now, as baring them. And yeah, it's a white working class family, but there were always characters on the show who did not fit that description, more so in the reboot.

There was an episode when Roseanne and other members of the family were fearful of their Muslim neighbours, but by the end of the half hour, they had got to know them and Roseanne herself was actively advocating for one of them, giving a serious dressing down to a racist character that held the views that she had realized (on the show at least) were unfounded, unfair and just wrong.

Similarly, there was reference to illegals, and no it did not refer to all immigrants, it referred to illegal immigrants. The people who are undocumented and working for less money than those Americans - immigrants among them - who work legally and must be paid fairly. It was about a man who spent his life working honourably - often in partnership with a black coworker and long time friend, a recurring character from the original show - and was losing jobs because other people were undercutting him by paying lower wages to illegal immigrants who sadly are desperate enough for work that they will do it for less than fair pay.

In the end I think ABC did the right thing, and I think the swiftness and decisiveness of their actions, based not just on this one tweet but a history of issues with Roseanne the person not the character, and on what we now know was a growing discomfort among cast and crew, is an important example for others, and a positive sign for the future. It was never said or implied that these illegals were the problem - it was the people who took advantage of their desperation and used it to undercut their competition.

That being said, the divisiveness that this show has created, with everyone in their corners so firm in their beliefs that they only see what they want to see and disregard what they don't want to hear, which mirrors America today, is terrifying.
 
Last edited:
Incidentally she is well-liked in Israel for her strident pro-Israel shtick. I’m doubly glad she’s off the air, all she did was empower the worst people here.
You made me read the comments :lynch:

Roseanne (the show) wasn't really as popular in Israel as it was in the US. Some on the right might enjoy the pro-Israel shtick, but quite a few Israelis either dislike it/her or simply don't care.

If Jerry Seinfeld ever got into a spat with a network, however...
 
I'd be interested in your further thoughts on this statement because I don't understand it. I see economic struggle and racism as two different things, that I guess can overlap, but "often used as a cover"? I don't understand what you mean.

I am not going to discuss it here, in OTBT, since it belongs in PI. And, you'll find the answer in PI, particularly in Trump-related discussions in late 2016 and early 2017.
 
Racism isn’t ‘Freedom of speech” it’s a hate crime and should never be acceptable.

Actually, racist speech is free speech in the U.S. And the Supreme Court has ruled this numerous times.

Should racist speech be considered acceptable? Absolutely not. But I’m highly uncomfortable with the government restricting speech or expression.

If you ban speech because it is considered offensive, it won’t stop people from being racist, homophobic, misogynistic, etc. It will just make it harder for people like that to have their views known and individuals people to make their own judgement.

I want people who are racist, bigoted, sexist, anti-LGBT, etc. to be able be vocal about it - so I and others who find it unacceptable can decide to not associate with them and even be able to discuss openly why we feel those views are wrong. That would become a lot harder for us to do if speech is restricted.

Besides, if speech starts becoming restricted, where would it end? What’s considered “offensive” can vary widely from person to person.
 
Actually, racist speech is free speech in the U.S. And the Supreme Court has ruled this numerous times.

Should racist speech be considered acceptable? Absolutely not. But I’m highly uncomfortable with the government restricting speech or expression.

If you ban speech because it is considered offensive, it won’t stop people from being racist, homophobic, misogynistic, etc. It will just make it harder for people like that to have their views known and individuals people to make their own judgement.

I want people who are racist, bigoted, sexist, anti-LGBT, etc. to be able be vocal about it - so I and others who find it unacceptable can decide to not associate with them and even be able to discuss openly why we feel those views are wrong. That would become a lot harder for us to do if speech is restricted.

Besides, if speech starts becoming restricted, where would it end? What’s considered “offensive” can vary widely from person to person.

Remember that some people posting are not residents of the United States and they have a different opinion about Free Speech. I took a First Amendment class in law school, and of course our 1L Con Law discussed that extensively, and one thing I learned is that the U.S. is really unique in how far we take our free speech in the free Western World.
 
As for the article, thanks for the link, I find it's similar to what's been said about the show since it returned - people who hated everything about it before it even started continued to do so (often without even watching it, or watching it selectively), and people who had some positive memory of its first incarnation liked the idea, and continued to like it.

I liked the show a lot in the 80s-90s and could only make it through the first 4(?) episodes of the reboot.

Mainly because my own tastes have changed and I am no longer interested in sitcoms or network TV in general. 30 years ago we didn't have many alternatives.

But compared to a few other network shows including sitcoms I have caught episodes of lately, the acting and production values in the Roseanne episodes I did watch seemed especially crude and were therefore painful for me to watch.

I didn't have a good enough sense from those episodes what the political slant of the show itself was. It seemed at least somewhat dialogic in its approach. That's not the reason I stopped watching.
 
I think this article touches upon things that jeffisjeff was speaking about:

"Roseanne was canceled. It isn't the only sitcom tackling politics and the working class."

https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/4/6/17189758/new-roseanne-revival-political-sitcoms

But it seems Roseanne was the only one that got big mainstream attention and success for it, which I think is tied to who people think of when they think of an economically-struggling family. And yes, in the political and cultural context, "economic struggle" has been used as a code word to criticize emphasis on social issues like race and to focus less attention away from it and to stop dividing people by race, which has been argued is a way to dismiss any sort of attention towards racism so they can continue to perpetuate it.
 
But it seems Roseanne was the only one that got big mainstream attention and success for it, which I think is tied to who people think of when they think of an economically-struggling family. And yes, in the political and cultural context, "economic struggle" has been used as a code word to criticize emphasis on social issues like race and to focus less attention away from it and to stop dividing people by race, which has been argued is a way to dismiss any sort of attention towards racism so they can continue to perpetuate it.
I think it's also tied to what Caroline Framke and Todd VanDerWerff point out in the piece - that during Roseanne's original run, its focus on a working-class family really was unique. And I think even now, it still gets credit for what it was then. It also aired at a time when a hit sitcom on a network meant a huge audience. It's much harder for a show to have that kind of impact today, and there was probably a fair bit of nostalgia when it came to people watching Roseanne.

It's good that there is a much variety and diversity on TV then there used to be. But it's okay for some shows not to be intersectional and to stay in their lane, as it where. Socio-economic status has a huge effect on people's lives, and it's good to have a variety of representations of it.
 
Racism isn’t ‘Freedom of speech” it’s a hate crime and should never be acceptable.

Someone has already posted that it is... but something further to say-

That doesn't mean it is acceptable. The government cannot stop Roseanne from saying such things. She is not being prosecuted for her tweet (because it wasn't a targeted hate crime).

BUT- Freedom of Speech doesn't give you freedom from repercussions. In this case she lost her (non-government) job. In some cases, you might be kicked off a privately owned internet forum, people can boycott businesses, others can tweet out how absolutely ridiculous the thing you said was.

Just because someone has the right to say something, doesn't mean others have to be OK with it.



Roseanne has shown her true colors before. This tweet doesn't surprise me and it is good she has had to face repercussions.

And I LOVED Sanofi's response.
 
Roseanne is bipolar and on the edge of disaster most of the time. ABC took a chance and this is what they got.

This is a good point. From Jimmy Kimmel (@jimmykimmel) on Twitter:

2018-05-30, 12:23 PM
“What ‪@therealroseanne‬ said is indefensible, but angrily attacking a woman who is obviously not well does no good for anyone. Please take a breath and remember that mental health issues are real. The Roseanne I know could probably use some compassion and help right now.”

I looked at her tweets over the last 24 hrs. and it is obvious she is unwell. I’m no expert but I once dealt with a bipolar friend in crisis and my guess is that Roseanne is off her meds and going through a major manic episode. There is likely nothing friends or family can do until she crashes and accepts help.
 
REPORT: ABC Ponders New Show For Roseanne Cast

http://www.joemygod.com/2018/05/30/abc-ponders-new-show-for-roseanne-cast/

There could be a scenario in the works where ABC salvages significant parts of Roseanne without having to say goodbye to some of the best actors on television (here’s looking at you, Laurie Metcalf and John Goodman).

Theres a lot of comments on this site.. This one was funny...... Write Roseanne out by having her run over by an Ambien delivery truck then replace her with a new character, maybe a long lost Roseanne relative, played by Rosie O'Donnell. Wanna see tRump and FOX heads explode?
 
Would anybody really watch that though? I mean if it was an unrelated project that had no cancellation controversy, I could see maybe some audience for this (especially with Goodman and Metcalf making names for themselves outside of Roseanne since the show's end) but this spin-off will only piss off the Roseanne fans and it's too tied to the Roseanne brand name that those who don't want to support Roseanne may not want contribute to her income in some way because she'd have to get a cut of the profits from that spin-off, right?
 
Someone has already posted that it is... but something further to say-

That doesn't mean it is acceptable. The government cannot stop Roseanne from saying such things. She is not being prosecuted for her tweet (because it wasn't a targeted hate crime).

BUT- Freedom of Speech doesn't give you freedom from repercussions. In this case she lost her (non-government) job. In some cases, you might be kicked off a privately owned internet forum, people can boycott businesses, others can tweet out how absolutely ridiculous the thing you said was.

Just because someone has the right to say something, doesn't mean others have to be OK with it.
Exactly. There seems to be a lot of complaints these days from those who just want to be rude saying that it is freedom of speech and then getting peeved when they are brought to account.

I think Roseanne is better off just not saying anything further instead of attacking others or using medication as an excuse for behaviour. It is actually more a sign of narcissistic personality disorder rather than any particular issue.
 
Would anybody really watch that though? I mean if it was an unrelated project that had no cancellation controversy, I could see maybe some audience for this (especially with Goodman and Metcalf making names for themselves outside of Roseanne since the show's end) but this spin-off will only piss off the Roseanne fans and it's too tied to the Roseanne brand name that those who don't want to support Roseanne may not want contribute to her income in some way because she'd have to get a cut of the profits from that spin-off, right?

I could see it working if it's repackaged somewhat, and I wonder if CBS might be interested in doing it. It's Sara Gilbert's network for The Talk, and there's a longstanding connection to their #1 show as both Gilbert and Laurie Metcalf have appeared (as different characters) on The Big Bang Theory, which of course stars Johnny Galecki from the original Roseanne cast, who made one appearance on the reboot. There was also buzz when the reboot brought back other actors remembered from the original, and hopes that more might show in subsequent seasons. And of course John Goodman has fans of his own.

I guess a lot depends on the contractual issues with Barr, and if enough of the actors are game to do it. Two and a Half Men survived about 4-5 seasons after it's star left the show in disgrace, and there are other examples.
 
Good point. It doesn't have to be a ratings juggernaut that Roseanne was, but it just has to do well enough to stay on the air.

This is sort of ironic. I remember an interview where Roseanne or somebody behind the show saying that there was an incident around season 2 where Roseanne had a big fight with the crew and creatives and she was written out of an episode, so the episode became a showcase for John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf. Some of the top creatives from the show approached Goodman and Metcalf to gauge if they'd be interested in continuing the show without Roseanne if they were to fire her. This made Goodman and Metcalf report to Roseanne right away as they felt this show would be nothing without her and in turn she realized that they were loyal to her. In the end those people who approached Goodman and Metcalf were off the show. Now it looks like this is what might be happening...like 25 or so years later.
 
Good point. It doesn't have to be a ratings juggernaut that Roseanne was, but it just has to do well enough to stay on the air.

This is sort of ironic. I remember an interview where Roseanne or somebody behind the show saying that there was an incident around season 2 where Roseanne had a big fight with the crew and creatives and she was written out of an episode, so the episode became a showcase for John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf. Some of the top creatives from the show approached Goodman and Metcalf to gauge if they'd be interested in continuing the show without Roseanne if they were to fire her. This made Goodman and Metcalf report to Roseanne right away as they felt this show would be nothing without her and in turn she realized that they were loyal to her. In the end those people who approached Goodman and Metcalf were off the show. Now it looks like this is what might be happening...like 25 or so years later.

I remember that episode! I honestly think this was one of the best scenes in the entire series. :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information