|
Post by Cuddles on Jun 21, 2018 17:54:56 GMT
I blame more on the producing than the actor. She still excelled on The Big Bang Theory.
|
|
|
Post by tinderbox on Jun 21, 2018 18:04:37 GMT
I blame more on the producing than the actor. She still excelled on The Big Bang Theory. I don't watch The Big Bang Theory so you're probably right.
I'm not sure why production would want Darlene/Sara to hold back on the snark or facial expressions and smirks. I don't see an upside to it other than to bring the character into adulthood with the responsibilities of parenthood etc. She'd be less carefree. I get it. However, during the reboot episodes it felt to me like it was Sara's choice to hold back....a little. It's something I noticed.
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Jun 21, 2018 18:10:07 GMT
I know exactly what you mean. Makes me wonder if there were viewpoint conflicts going on behind the scenes as well. And/or maybe their deliveries were messing with her deliveries. If I recall, the most natural (Darlene-ish) she acted was when Johnny was on.
|
|
|
Post by MissGriss on Jun 21, 2018 19:49:15 GMT
I blame more on the producing than the actor. She still excelled on The Big Bang Theory. I don't watch The Big Bang Theory so you're probably right.
I'm not sure why production would want Darlene/Sara to hold back on the snark or facial expressions and smirks. I don't see an upside to it other than to bring the character into adulthood with the responsibilities of parenthood etc. She'd be less carefree. I get it. However, during the reboot episodes it felt to me like it was Sara's choice to hold back....a little. It's something I noticed.
But Sara IS production, isn't she? I'm sure there were other producers, too, but wasn't she the main one? It could be, though, that like Cuddles said, there was disagreement on who her character should be as an adult.
|
|
|
Post by Gutmutter on Jun 21, 2018 23:32:45 GMT
But it makes sense that as she matured and had kids, some of that edge would have worn off.
|
|
|
Post by MFWalkoff on Jun 22, 2018 0:01:53 GMT
I don't think the new show will have to be all that political on either side -- it should get back to what the original show was good at doing -- presenting the bleak economic reality of these people no matter who was in office.
I guess the way that social media has turned everyone into polarized shouters has to be addressed as well, but without Roseanne wearing her red hat around the house anymore, things can become a lot more subtle and they can concentrate on the characters rather than the headlines.
|
|
|
Post by phartblossom on Jun 22, 2018 0:12:44 GMT
I agree both sides were shown on the reboot, I am talking about when the story features Darlene. I bet it will be exceptionally political...but with out any Trump support or any of that.
|
|
|
Post by MFWalkoff on Jun 22, 2018 0:45:04 GMT
Why make that claim when we don't know what it will be yet? We try to avoid needless conflict at FORT -- we're all watching these TV shows together. And there's nothing to watch from the new show yet. We'll see when it airs this fall.
|
|
|
Post by MissScarlet on Jun 22, 2018 1:36:23 GMT
I felt the reboot was very impartial. It was able to laugh at both sides & present them equally. That was what I liked about it. It found humor in stuff people don't always find the humor in. I'm hoping the reboot-reboot will be the same in that. I don't watch TV to have any "agenda" thrown at me from either side. I watch for entertainment. I don't need to agree with every word or idea. Just make me laugh or be entertained.
I will definitely watch the reboot-reboot. I liked the characters & the way they dealt with the trials & tribulations of life, with humor & heart. Also the way they found enjoyment in the little things in life.
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysVeg on Jun 22, 2018 3:34:00 GMT
Latest news report says it's a done deal -- 10 episodes have been ordered for the re-reboot, which will be called "The Conners."
|
|
|
Post by phartblossom on Jun 22, 2018 11:48:44 GMT
I don't think the new show will have to be all that political on either side -- it should get back to what the original show was good at doing -- presenting the bleak economic reality of these people no matter who was in office. I guess the way that social media has turned everyone into polarized shouters has to be addressed as well, but without Roseanne wearing her red hat around the house anymore, things can become a lot more subtle and they can concentrate on the characters rather than the headlines. What about The p**** hat Jackie wore?
|
|
|
Post by phartblossom on Jun 22, 2018 11:49:28 GMT
Why make that claim when we don't know what it will be yet? We try to avoid needless conflict at FORT -- we're all watching these TV shows together. And there's nothing to watch from the new show yet. We'll see when it airs this fall. I am certainly not trying to cause conflict, I just have a different opinion. That is allowed, right?
|
|
|
Post by momrek06 on Jun 22, 2018 14:16:06 GMT
Latest news report says it's a done deal -- 10 episodes have been ordered for the re-reboot, which will be called "The Conners." I will DEF watch. For reasons I will not state .... I refused to watch the RE-BOOT. NOW I am back!!!
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysVeg on Jun 22, 2018 16:01:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Imperfect1 on Jun 22, 2018 17:51:47 GMT
Latest news report says it's a done deal -- 10 episodes have been ordered for the re-reboot, which will be called "The Conners." I will DEF watch. For reasons I will not state .... I refused to watch the RE-BOOT. NOW I am back!!! You took the words right out of my mouth, Kar. Now I'm really looking forward to watching The Conners!
|
|
|
Post by MissScarlet on Jun 22, 2018 20:33:23 GMT
I'm looking forward to giving The Connors a try. Glad it will be on this Fall. I'm glad that Roseanne stepped away, or down, or however you want to put it. It doesn't excuse what she did, but it was a decent thing for her to do. I guess she's paid the price this time for her hurtful behavior. I don't feel the need to continue to beat her up or trash her. Everyone made it out only minorly harmed. Except her. I hope she learned a valuable lesson from all of this.
Lesson #1: The bigger they are, the harder they fall. Lesson #2: Words can hurt, a lot, whether spoken or written. Lesson #3: Think before you speak, or text. Lesson #4: Your sense of humor may not be everyone's sense of humor. Remember that. Lesson #5: Be nice, whether you want to or not. Lesson #6: Be careful what you do & be careful what you say. Things have a habit of coming back around to bite you in the butt.
|
|
|
Post by momrek06 on Jun 22, 2018 20:58:31 GMT
I'm looking forward to giving The Connors a try. Glad it will be on this Fall. I'm glad that Roseanne stepped away, or down, or however you want to put it. It doesn't excuse what she did, but it was a decent thing for her to do. I guess she's paid the price this time for her hurtful behavior. I don't feel the need to continue to beat her up or trash her. Everyone made it out only minorly harmed. Except her. I hope she learned a valuable lesson from all of this. Lesson #1: The bigger they are, the harder they fall. Lesson #2: Words can hurt, a lot, whether spoken or written. Lesson #3: Think before you speak, or text. Lesson #4: Your sense of humor may not be everyone's sense of humor. Remember that. Lesson #5: Be nice, whether you want to or not. Lesson #6: Be careful what you do & be careful what you say. Things have a habit of coming back around to bite you in the butt. Just to clarify MissScarlet .... RB was fired. RB did not step down. RB was very angry she was fired. RB tried defending her tweet countless times. Many people on the set, the crew as well as actors all lost their jobs. Their income. Hopefully, with this new re-boot all those out of work all.this.time will be reinstated. The exact same day that RB put out that horrid tweet, was the FIRST day all Writers were returning to ABC to start writing Season 2. They were sent home.
|
|
|
Post by MissGriss on Jun 22, 2018 21:07:38 GMT
I think MissScarlet was referring to the fact that Roseanne gave up her ownership in the show so that those people would not lose their jobs and the show could continue. That's a totally separate issue from her and everyone else initially losing their jobs when the show was cancelled. I agree with MissScarlet that Roseanne's doing what was necessary in order to allow others to continue on with the show was the decent thing to do, and I'm glad that people won't be losing their jobs, after all. Saying that she did a good thing by letting go of her ownership in the show doesn't mean that Roseanne's initial behavior and all of the bad behavior afterwards is OK. I think most people agree that was horrid.
|
|
|
Post by Mikesgirl on Jun 22, 2018 22:06:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by razorbacker on Jun 22, 2018 22:26:19 GMT
No interest whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by momrek06 on Jun 22, 2018 22:37:45 GMT
I think MissScarlet was referring to the fact that Roseanne gave up her ownership in the show so that those people would not lose their jobs and the show could continue. That's a totally separate issue from her and everyone else initially losing their jobs when the show was cancelled. I agree with MissScarlet that Roseanne's doing what was necessary in order to allow others to continue on with the show was the decent thing to do, and I'm glad that people won't be losing their jobs, after all. Saying that she did a good thing by letting go of her ownership in the show doesn't mean that Roseanne's initial behavior and all of the bad behavior afterwards is OK. I think most people agree that was horrid. I did not get "letting go of her ownership" from MS saying "I am glad RB stepped away or down". If that is what MS meant then I wish she had worded it that way. To me I read it as though MS did not realize RB was fired and that RB was doing a "decent thing" by leaving the show. ALSO, no one has been working all.this.time on the show. No work No pay. Its been a month. So far.
|
|
|
Post by MissGriss on Jun 22, 2018 23:02:24 GMT
I think MissScarlet was referring to the fact that Roseanne gave up her ownership in the show so that those people would not lose their jobs and the show could continue. That's a totally separate issue from her and everyone else initially losing their jobs when the show was cancelled. I agree with MissScarlet that Roseanne's doing what was necessary in order to allow others to continue on with the show was the decent thing to do, and I'm glad that people won't be losing their jobs, after all. Saying that she did a good thing by letting go of her ownership in the show doesn't mean that Roseanne's initial behavior and all of the bad behavior afterwards is OK. I think most people agree that was horrid. I did not get "letting go of her ownership" from MS saying "I am glad RB stepped away or down". If that is what MS meant then I wish she had worded it that way. To me I read it as though MS did not realize RB was fired and that RB was doing a "decent thing" by leaving the show. ALSO, no one has been working all.this.time on the show. No work No pay. Its been a month. So far. Yeah. Unexpectedly being without pay is never a good thing. I know it would definitely throw my finances into a crisis. I am glad, though, that they are moving on with the revised show. I'm guessing that everyone who hasn't already found something else will be hired back and that they'll get going pretty soon, at least I hope so.
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysVeg on Jun 22, 2018 23:12:41 GMT
Apparently Roseanne Barr's son inherited some of her mean-spiritedness. According to ET, he tweeted that the cast and crew of the new reboot without his mother will be out of a job again three days after the first episode airs. Nice guy. I guess he thinks he's defending his mother, but that comment was so unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by momrek06 on Jun 22, 2018 23:36:43 GMT
Apparently Roseanne Barr's son inherited some of her mean-spiritedness. According to ET, he tweeted that the cast and crew of the new reboot without his mother will be out of a job again three days after the first episode airs. Nice guy. I guess he thinks he's defending his mother, but that comment was so unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by phartblossom on Jun 23, 2018 10:38:08 GMT
Do some people not watch sitcoms cause of a person's political belifs? That seems like a stretch. I don't watch sitcoms. Has nothing to do with politics. I just don't think they are funny. I don't watch movies with that sitcom sort of puerile 'humor' either. It's just a matter of taste, not politics. I had no idea what Roseann's politics were when her show first ran. But not only wouldn't I have watched it because, sitcom. But I have always found her to be abrasively obnoxious. I'm just on this thread for the circus Roseann created with her politics! I love sitcoms, enjoy the comedy relief and nonsense that makes me laugh. When they get too political I feel the network is trying to influence and I feel we get enough of that. The reboot showed both sides...sorta. But the new one with Sara Gilbert at the helm with be a I hate Trump show just like Will and Grace was. It will be full of Liberal agenda and that is what ABC is all about. Now the show will be Sara's politics. Now I am not causing strife I just seem to have a different opinion than most here on this site. I am not being hateful or posting anything anymore political than anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Imperfect1 on Jun 23, 2018 14:29:16 GMT
I don't watch sitcoms. Has nothing to do with politics. I just don't think they are funny. I don't watch movies with that sitcom sort of puerile 'humor' either. It's just a matter of taste, not politics. I had no idea what Roseann's politics were when her show first ran. But not only wouldn't I have watched it because, sitcom. But I have always found her to be abrasively obnoxious. I'm just on this thread for the circus Roseann created with her politics! I love sitcoms, enjoy the comedy relief and nonsense that makes me laugh. When they get too political I feel the network is trying to influence and I feel we get enough of that. The reboot showed both sides...sorta. But the new one with Sara Gilbert at the helm with be a I hate Trump show just like Will and Grace was. It will be full of Liberal agenda and that is what ABC is all about. Now the show will be Sara's politics. Now I am not causing strife I just seem to have a different opinion than most here on this site. I am not being hateful or posting anything anymore political than anyone else. You know, like most of us, I've been watching tv for more years than I can count -- sit-coms, dramas, comedies, etc. etc. -- and for all of those shows, I rarely thought about their politics. (Even with Archie Bunker being the obnoxious bigot that he was, I rarely thought about the actual politics behind his feelings.) So, now we come to another show that was partially about politics -- the new "Roseanne" reboot. But a very important point is that even though the new "Roseanne" reboot definitely had a political agenda, THAT WASN'T THE PROBLEM!!! The problem was Roseanne Barr herself, and her horrible tweets and statements. The show itself was doing just fine, WITH politics being a part of it. However, in regard to the new "Conners" spin-off, I believe, chances are really good that politics WON'T be an issue on the show. First of all, the forces behind the SCRIPT WRITING will have changed completely. With the "Roseanne" reboot, Roseanne Barr was IN CHARGE and she was the creator and driving force behind the content of the episodes. In the new spin-off, there isn't any one powerhouse who will be that person. So, that fact alone makes me think that this will not likely be a 'politically themed' show. Second, we have to accept the fact that the Conners are a 'blue collar' family, who are low on money, have 'blue collar' jobs, and live in a 'blue collar' world. So there will be some talk about those issues, just like in the old "Roseanne" show, those issues were often part of the storyline. But having the characters talking about their life issues doesn't mean that the show will necessarily be a showplace for the-powers-that-be to provide a political (liberal) agenda. So, I say, let's wait and see, and not damn the new spin-off before it's even been written. And if there is discussion of politics and some viewers don't like that, they probably won't watch the show. And those that do, will. And so what??? Really!
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Jun 23, 2018 14:57:57 GMT
I didn't think it was that political. I'm not sure I'll watch,we'll see. I liked, and have always liked the chemistry between Roseanne and Dan. I don't watch many sitcoms, because they aren't funny. I heard RB signed off on everything, so the cast could get back to work..
|
|
|
Post by Cuddles on Jun 23, 2018 15:46:54 GMT
The original program had a knack for giving us Roseanne full throttle but with a big heart. That big heart was gone in the reboot. Pinning and then dunking your granddaughter's head under a running faucet after cussing her out is not something Roseanne would have done. Therefore, politics aside, the show was going nowhere for me. Then her tweets came into play, and I was done; I no longer wanted to support her livelihood.
|
|
|
Post by JosephD on Jun 23, 2018 15:54:30 GMT
I don't watch a lot of sitcoms because I just don't think they're funny. I don't care for their canned laughter and I don't care for their unimaginative "Why did the chicken cross the road" - simplistic humor. I like clever, inventive humor, the kind that makes you have to think. At minimum, I like characters with everyday problems that anyone can relate to.
I did like the sitcom Mike & Molly, minus all the annoying references to Mike's weight. I never think it's funny when the writers of a sitcom chastise a character about a perceived physical flaw just to get a laugh. Ha-ha...we get it. He's overweight. Don't keep making that your punch line. I'm sure the actor playing Mike probably felt the same.
I don't mind a sitcom talking political if there's a decent balance in viewpoints, and if that's not the ONLY focus of their show.
As for "Roseanne," -- good-bye. I wasn't a big fan of the show's namesake. I do still like the reruns of "Roseanne" from its early days when the kids were little and the storyline was very blue collar, centering around the family trying to keep their electric from being shut off, Dan's bike shop or Becky realizing she has no college fund.
I'm going to give "The Connors" a chance. I hope without Roseanne Barr's involvement, the writers and cast feel a sense of freedom to explore. Without Roseanne's presence making everyone feel as if they're walking on eggshells, hopefully, "The Connors" will find their audience and just move on. With the addition of Darlene's son and DJ's daughter the cast is diverse enough that the writers should have no problem coming up with inventive storylines. They have plenty of characters from every age group and personality type, so that gives them a lot of options to work with.
I'm curious to see how they're going to handle Roseanne's departure. The only thing that seems to make sense is if she dies. If Roseanne and Dan were to get a divorce, it wouldn't make any sense that Roseanne's own sister Jackie and mother Bev would side with Dan and cut all ties with Roseanne herself. If the writers were to send her off to visit Jerry, that would only buy them a little time. Then what? Plus, why wouldn't Dan go with her? Or Jackie? Plus again, there would have to be some dialog among the rest of the family like, "Have you heard from mom yet? When's she coming home?" So, why prolong the inevitable?
|
|
|
Post by FannyMare on Jun 23, 2018 15:55:00 GMT
Her granddaughter's a mouthy little thing..I lol!
|
|