Yeah, why would a working actor want to be on a highly rated, hugely popular sitcom. Makes no sense.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The New Yorker: How One Joke on “Roseanne” Explains the Show
- Thread starter UnpopularBlargh
- Start date
Yeah, why would a working actor want to be on a highly rated, hugely popular sitcom. Makes no sense.
Currently reading the history of racism and what youre suggesting is essentially the anti assimilationalist racism that has been prevalent throughout all of time- that because some progressive ideals are espoused throughout the show some how circumvents the incidents like the one in question, all the while being applauded for its progressiveness when in reality its just the new versions of ideals that created "separate but equal".
It's a big problem, they've forgotten what made the original a good series. It was about the Connor's getting by but now it's just a topical joke show like so many on TV. Also I only saw the end of it the other night but they made David a bad dad from what I saw, that's fucking dumb imo.
I wish it was a conspiracy, it would make this all more entertaining. I'm Canadian. I'm appalled that Americans voted in Trump. Trump's America is all sorts of terrifying. I wouldn't be watching this show if it was a soap box for selling Trump's America. Some bloggers had already decided it was a MAGA show before they saw a trailer, and they're too far gone and committed to the story they were interested in telling to judge the show accurately. People don't need to watch the show, if they don't want to support Roseanne Barr the Person, but if people want to talk shit about the show, they should probably give it an honest watch first to see if it's even worth getting riled up about. And it isn't. Lol
I mean, any show that treats Trump support with anything other than absolute scorn isn't worth watching, imo. I get what you're saying though.
Roseanne and Dan aren't the moral compasses of the revival show, and anyone who gives it a watch will see that the much more progressive Darlene is the backbone, this time around. Including conservative viewpoints to be ridiculed and foiled does not make it a conservative show. This is why it's important to see the show to understand the full context and not take moments out of context to pretend that this is the morality the show is trying to sell.
Roseanne and Dan's Trump support was only highlighted in the first episode, and the show begins by showing the hole they dug themselves into, and how they're coming to terms with the world they ended up in by making that vote.
Why are you just asking about John Goodman? There are some very progressive people involved with this show like Sara Gilbert and Wanda Sykes. They don't need the money yet they are doing it anyway. You think they want to be involved in a show that promotes the Alt Right? Of course not, and the show doesn't.
You need to read more than the slanted shit you're currently reading. I don't watch the show, but I've read enough to know what you just said is complete BS.
Um, the topic of race hasn't even come up on the show other than that one line in the OP article, but ok, yeah, it's full of anti assimilationalist racism, whatever the fuck that is.
I mean, some of the excerpts don't paint a pretty picture. That joke is offensive on several levels. Maybe i'm wrong, the future will tell.
Please point me to the not slanted shit you've been reading instead 'Lord Brady'.
That's one hell of an article. Also explains while I enjoy The Middle and Speechless. They may serve the same group of people, but they beat you on the head over it.
The thing is, those two shows are more than just being blue collar families. They're both dysfunctional families going about their lives. The problem with Roseanne is that they flout their identities to everyone's faces, making things a tribal affair whether to support them or not.
Minority shows don't have that luxury because they aren't that many of them. One mistake is all it takes to cancel them. Because of which, one can learn a lot from them. Yeah, FOTB has strayed a lot from Asian tropes, but they're still there. Hell, this season alone they discussed flush reaction and spent half an episode taking in Mandarin.
In conclusion, everyone wants representation, but few people like it when one spouts superiority over the others. Also, if the writing's good you can enjoy all sorts of shows.
Okay. That's a hell of a hot take. The Heck's house is constantly in shambles (they still have a hole between Sue's and Brick's house) and the only reason they made it to college was due to Axl's football skills and Sue doing great at her SAT as well as working multiple jobs and various fund drives and even then Mike had to give up his stake in his diaper business to keep her there. Meanwhile in Speechless JJ and his crew got kicked out of their house at the end of the season and there have been multiple stories of that family fighting the school to support their son with cerebral palsy (sometimes to his dismay... but that's another topic.
The thing is, those two shows are more than just being blue collar families. They're both dysfunctional families going about their lives. The problem with Roseanne is that they flout their identities to everyone's faces, making things a tribal affair whether to support them or not.
Minority shows don't have that luxury because they aren't that many of them. One mistake is all it takes to cancel them. Because of which, one can learn a lot from them. Yeah, FOTB has strayed a lot from Asian tropes, but they're still there. Hell, this season alone they discussed flush reaction and spent half an episode taking in Mandarin.
In conclusion, everyone wants representation, but few people like it when one spouts superiority over the others. Also, if the writing's good you can enjoy all sorts of shows.
Last edited:
So, I get what you're saying, but what's weird to me is that Roseanne is an Actual Crazy Piece of Shit IRL, so why would she get involved in a show where her shitty beliefs are a punchline? Honestly, from what you told me, I don't think the show glorifies Trump support. I do think it normalizes it, which is just as dangerous. In a way, Roseanne is a "just like us" show, but for Trump supporters instead of black folks or Asian folks. If we treat abhorrent garbage like that as the new normal, shit's just gonna keep getting worse. I'm not judging anyone for liking the show (I like South Park, and its politics are all kinds of screwy), but I think it's important to keep in mind how dangerous normalization of harmful ideas is.
Surprise. Racist gas bag makes TV show full of tone-deaf, racist shit.
That John Goodman associated himself with this is incredibly disheartening.
That John Goodman associated himself with this is incredibly disheartening.
One of many that paint a clear picture of what the show is going for and it isn't a love letter to the MAGA crowd.
And do you really think Sara Gilbert would act in and co-produce a show whose aim was to appeal only to MAGA voters? That's insane.
The success of Roseanne means the person Roseanne is a) getting credit for shit she really doesn't deserve credit for and b) allowing her to be more noticeable and have a bigger voice when her and her shitty views should have stayed in the dustbin of irrelevant entertainment history alongside Mel Gibson and the like. But hey, he's back as well and having a goof so whoopidity doo...nothing matters and awful people aren't held accountable and literally handed shit now.
What i see in that article is someone enamored of the show and with nothing to say about its politics. It's fluff, nothing more. Which is fine by itself. Doesn't really bring anything to this discussion in my opinion.
As for Sara Gilbert i don't recognize her at first glance, but from a quick search she's a lesbian and an original cast member. I don't see how any of these things would preclude her from being in this show. People like money. Many times even over their own beliefs. Like i said, i'm not familiar with Gilbert, so i wouldn't know what those might be.
No one knows where this show will go, we'll see.
Pretty much said everything I was going to.
Other than setting the stage in the first episode, the modern day world, it's pretty much presented just how it was when it originally aired. It's a very solid TV show, way better than I anticipated. I'm thrilled that the ratings are doing so well and holding pretty steady now. The show is far more than what some people want to view it as.
This whole thing is bringing tons of people out of the woodwork speaking on things they have no clue about, ie, the show itself and those involved with it existing. Heck, it's only back because Sara Gilbert in the first place, it was her entire idea. Anyone that takes even a second to recognize who she is should understand what we are dealing with.
I don't believe that the show has said specifically that Dan is a Trump supporter. I kinda feel like Dan is the tether that keeps Roseanne from heading into Alex Jones territory. I wouldn't be surprised if later on it's revealed he didn't vote for Trump.
Ahhh. I didn't read any press about the show. Makes sense as Dan has been the voice of reason.
I'm so confused. I could have sworn we had this thread and discussion already but can't find it now
We did weeks ago. I dont think it had its own thread though, and quite frankly I can see why. That's a rather innocuous line of dialogue, but still kinda funny.
"I was just kidding bro! I'm not really racist. Stop taking everything so seriously."
It's not just this show. It's hard to find places of discussion where sitcoms are treated as light fare these days. Guess there's really not much to say otherwise.
You think it's a problem that a white family doesn't sit around discussing race? (though there was a white people joke last week)
Race will probably come up in DJ/Gina's episode, but it wouldn't have been relevant in any of the story lines so far.
Um, it's uh, like 5 episodes into the season, so um, uh, no, not really.
I haven't seen the show yet. I'm torn cause I loved Roseanne the original show but I really dislike Roseanne's (the actor) views. In the end I mostly don't watch cause I missed taping the pilot.
But, I would have to see the show myself to make a judgement. I agree with some one that it could be taken out of context. Take Last Man Standing. One could argue it does a solid point of showing both sides (which I admit I originally thought before I paid attention). I mean it has plenty of liberal characters and they do all the time take shots at the dad's POV. But if you watch it you'll notice the dad, the very conservative guy, is always shown right. He may take some consideration of the other point of view but in the end it mostly validates him. And the ultra liberal is always ridiculed and treated as overly sensitive. His liberal wife mostly defers to him and sometimes he'll make concessions to her. But he's king of the family and the person they all look up to. The dad is the "moral center" of the show (and sadly reminds me a lot of how my dad talks about liberals honestly. Imo he's a pretty accurate portrayel of a conservative in the middle class. Except he's a little more reasonable than my dad).
So I could see an argument saying that Roseanne and Dan are there to be shown wrong by the "moral center". But, I admit I can't say cause I haven't seen it (I kinda hope the person arguing that is right though).
In the end though, I think I'd watch it if it was funny and the political compass didn't piss me off too much to offset funny. I mean I watch last man standing even though it has me eyerolling sometimes.
But, I would have to see the show myself to make a judgement. I agree with some one that it could be taken out of context. Take Last Man Standing. One could argue it does a solid point of showing both sides (which I admit I originally thought before I paid attention). I mean it has plenty of liberal characters and they do all the time take shots at the dad's POV. But if you watch it you'll notice the dad, the very conservative guy, is always shown right. He may take some consideration of the other point of view but in the end it mostly validates him. And the ultra liberal is always ridiculed and treated as overly sensitive. His liberal wife mostly defers to him and sometimes he'll make concessions to her. But he's king of the family and the person they all look up to. The dad is the "moral center" of the show (and sadly reminds me a lot of how my dad talks about liberals honestly. Imo he's a pretty accurate portrayel of a conservative in the middle class. Except he's a little more reasonable than my dad).
So I could see an argument saying that Roseanne and Dan are there to be shown wrong by the "moral center". But, I admit I can't say cause I haven't seen it (I kinda hope the person arguing that is right though).
In the end though, I think I'd watch it if it was funny and the political compass didn't piss me off too much to offset funny. I mean I watch last man standing even though it has me eyerolling sometimes.
Where's your line in the sand here? How many more episodes does the show get before you can't defend it on that front?
I don't need to defend it on anything. The show has dealt with racial issues before the revival. If they write a new episode that deals with it again, great. If not, I don't really care. One of the new characters on the show is bi-racial, so I won't be surprised if it comes up.
I think it's a problem that you don't think a show that wants to talk about race should have to talk about race. Race already came up.
And if the show claims to represent trump supporters and doesn't talk about race, there's already a problem.
But that movie kinda sucked...
Bitch what. That's one of Carell's best. Okay okay. Fucking hell
Politics are all fine and dandy to argue about, but DAN IN REAL LIFE?