Roseanne/The Conners

Discuss TV shows old and new.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
MoonlitKnight
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Roseanne

#151 Post by MoonlitKnight » Mon Jun 25, 2018 1:17 pm

soundchaser wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 3:28 pm
Americans as a whole don't much like the idea of class, because it cuts against that ever-present "bootstraps" dream narrative. If class exists, it would be admitting that fortune (in both senses of the word) still has a lot to do with station in life.
A sentiment that only right-wingers seems to actually still genuinely believe. :|
connor wrote:
Sat Jun 23, 2018 1:51 pm
Exactly. There's not even a "degraded" or Tony Blairized working class/labor party in the USA. The Democrats, while they used to be farther to the Left, never had the structural connections to trade unions that European Labor or SocDem parties have or had. There could never be a Corbyn-style takeover of the Democrats.
Of course, Bernie Sanders seems to be the latest attempting to do this... though he's noticeably making fewer waves these days, presumably because he wants to run for president with them again in 2020 -- even as the party is actively trying to hatch schemes to fuck him over again. It'll be more difficult to do it this time, given he'll have tons more name recognition and a lot more people will be paying attention to the shenanigans they'll try to pull this time around... but I wouldn't put it past them to figure out something. Let's face it: the Dems would rather lose to the GOP's with a milquetoast neoliberal (read: Republicans who are OK with gay people and minorities, in the words of Jimmy Dore; used to be abortion as well, but then people like Tim Kaine and Dan Lipinski got elected to Congress :-& ) candidate than beat them with a progressive candidate. ](*,)

If Bernie started a new third party today, it would instantly become far more popular than either of the current two corporate teat-suckling parties who are really now just two factions of the same party. It would almost certainly do the Dems what the GOP's did to the Whigs 150+ years ago. Even so, we still need a minimum of 4 viable parties to really make sure everyone is at least somewhat represented. The more the Dems continue to give the finger to the actual left, the more numbered their days are.

It was not my intention to further drag this thread down a political path, so I'll just say that the Conners certainly represent those in the rust belt who turned to Trump purely out of desperation, given that they knew full well that Clinton would be a first-class ticket back to Status Quoville rather than presenting actual change. Of course, it was pretty obvious to me that Trump was clearly not going to be that change, but when you make people desperate, they don't often make the most clear-headed decisions.

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

Re: Roseanne

#152 Post by domino harvey » Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:21 am

Barr offers compelling new defense: "I thought the bitch was white!"

User avatar
MichaelB
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:20 pm
Location: Worthing
Contact:

Re: Roseanne

#153 Post by MichaelB » Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:37 am

domino harvey wrote:
Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:21 am
Barr offers compelling new defense: "I thought the bitch was white!"
If she genuinely thought that, her original tweet doesn't make the tiniest lick of sense any more.

User avatar
Murdoch
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:59 pm
Location: Upstate NY

Re: Roseanne

#154 Post by Murdoch » Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:44 am

Anything to stay in the news I guess...

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Roseanne

#155 Post by mfunk9786 » Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:55 am

MichaelB wrote:
Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:37 am
domino harvey wrote:
Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:21 am
Barr offers compelling new defense: "I thought the bitch was white!"
If she genuinely thought that, her original tweet doesn't make the tiniest lick of sense any more.
I think her defense was that she just thought this white woman looked like that character from Planet of the Apes, but what was this, her 30th different defense at this point? She's an addled person, and obviously not a very decent one in this state, and maybe everyone should collectively decide to look away from this trainwreck instead of continuing to stick a microphone in her face and ask for her to share her latest hateful bout of confusion.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Roseanne

#156 Post by hearthesilence » Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:44 pm

John Goodman apparently let it slip that Roseanne Conner will be dead in the new show, having told an interviewer "I guess [my character will] be mopey and sad because his wife’s dead. [But the Conners] love each other very much and that’s what gets them through, the humor and the love."

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

Re: Roseanne

#157 Post by Big Ben » Mon Aug 27, 2018 8:41 pm

hearthesilence wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:44 pm
John Goodman apparently let it slip that Roseanne Conner will be dead in the new show, having told an interviewer "I guess [my character will] be mopey and sad because his wife’s dead. [But the Conners] love each other very much and that’s what gets them through, the humor and the love."
Roseanne Barr is to be shot Wild Bunch style trying to free children from a non existent pizzeria dungeon.

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

Re: Roseanne / the Conners

#158 Post by McCrutchy » Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:54 pm

This feels like something that will be walked back quickly. I'm not even sure I agree with killing the character off under these circumstances, but regardless, I could see a lot of former viewers boycotting the new series over the idea that Roseanne Conner is now dead and will in all likelihood never be heard from again. Even if the character had never returned to the show, killing her does seem a bit like kicking Roseanne Barr when she's down, and it isn't like ABC have much to lose by not killing Roseanne Conner off, anyway.

On the other hand, maybe ABC feels like The Conners will be a one and done thing, sort of like a limited series, and are simply trying to hook viewers in immediately and then burn off the show by the end of the season.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: Roseanne / the Conners

#159 Post by Michael Kerpan » Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:58 pm

Have her gone off to Eritrea or Haiti (or some place) with the Peace Corps -- conversion experience....

How rude!
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:36 am

Re: Roseanne / the Conners

#160 Post by How rude! » Mon Aug 27, 2018 11:26 pm

Surely, the most appropriate explanation would be the revelation she was a Russian 'sleeper' agent, and had been helping the Trump presidency to collude with the Russians. The final image of her being bundled into a secret service car spewing Russian bile would be delicious.

Розанна Коннер (Her characters' name in Russian)

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

Re: Roseanne / the Conners

#161 Post by Big Ben » Tue Aug 28, 2018 12:52 am

McCrutchy wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:54 pm
This feels like something that will be walked back quickly. I'm not even sure I agree with killing the character off under these circumstances, but regardless, I could see a lot of former viewers boycotting the new series over the idea that Roseanne Conner is now dead and will in all likelihood never be heard from again. Even if the character had never returned to the show, killing her does seem a bit like kicking Roseanne Barr when she's down, and it isn't like ABC have much to lose by not killing Roseanne Conner off, anyway.

On the other hand, maybe ABC feels like The Conners will be a one and done thing, sort of like a limited series, and are simply trying to hook viewers in immediately and then burn off the show by the end of the season.
Considering conservative boycotts over the past year have consisted mostly of detroyed expensive equipment I can't wait for the vids. This is a woman whose been pushing all manner of disingenuous baloney for a while now. Some of the stuff she has peddled has nearly caused real world violence and ABC knew this when they rebooted the damn show. I don't know how the show will do but I feel bad for the crew she alienated with her nonsense. I kind of feel it'll be a one off like you said but I most certainly do not think Roseanne is being kicked while she's down. If there's some real medical reason she's erratic I hope she seeks help but unless she seeks help I really don't think giving her anymore spotlight is healthy for any production crew.

Then again Republicans do have the money to produce any form of media they want and yet they are strangely absent from filmed media. Surely any number of the MAGA people could make a channel like OWN and fill it with programs they want right? Not that I'd watch it but I'm so confused as to why they don't do this.

User avatar
movielocke
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:44 am

Re: Roseanne/The Conners

#162 Post by movielocke » Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:13 pm

Big Ben wrote:
McCrutchy wrote:
Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:54 pm
This feels like something that will be walked back quickly. I'm not even sure I agree with killing the character off under these circumstances, but regardless, I could see a lot of former viewers boycotting the new series over the idea that Roseanne Conner is now dead and will in all likelihood never be heard from again. Even if the character had never returned to the show, killing her does seem a bit like kicking Roseanne Barr when she's down, and it isn't like ABC have much to lose by not killing Roseanne Conner off, anyway.

On the other hand, maybe ABC feels like The Conners will be a one and done thing, sort of like a limited series, and are simply trying to hook viewers in immediately and then burn off the show by the end of the season.
Considering conservative boycotts over the past year have consisted mostly of detroyed expensive equipment I can't wait for the vids. This is a woman whose been pushing all manner of disingenuous baloney for a while now. Some of the stuff she has peddled has nearly caused real world violence and ABC knew this when they rebooted the damn show. I don't know how the show will do but I feel bad for the crew she alienated with her nonsense. I kind of feel it'll be a one off like you said but I most certainly do not think Roseanne is being kicked while she's down. If there's some real medical reason she's erratic I hope she seeks help but unless she seeks help I really don't think giving her anymore spotlight is healthy for any production crew.

Then again Republicans do have the money to produce any form of media they want and yet they are strangely absent from filmed media. Surely any number of the MAGA people could make a channel like OWN and fill it with programs they want right? Not that I'd watch it but I'm so confused as to why they don't do this.
Channels are either HBO subscription financed or advertiser financed. OWN sells ads. MAGA would probably have to sell ads. OWN doesn’t target politically bent viewers with politically bent media because whether or not there is a market for it, there is not a market of advertisers eagerly willing to risk their corporations by purchasing time on the channel.

The same would be true of MAGA, the problem is an advertiser market.

Note that conservative radio works but radio ads are very cheap to produce, so there is a much bigger market of corporations (like gold scammers, equity scammers, fliphouses scammers etc, scammers love advertising in conservative radio) willing and financially able to advertise to a politically motivated niche audience.

Since the talk radio content is syndicated to radio stations, there’s also a further lure of insulation advertisers can claim as plausible deniability.

Part of the problem with left wing talk radio was never a lack of audience but the militant and organized Conservative attacks on advertisers and radio stations any time any left wing program dared to attempt to exist. The segregated radio pool exists because conservatives relentlessly enforce the segregation, left wing talk radio will never be allowed.

That doesn’t bode well for the presumed future existence of a MAGA television channel, but left wingers have generally been good about applying pressure on the more vulnerable television advertising market.

Post Reply