Vee

The Radio Times covers Steven Moffat's novelization of The Day of the Doctor, which explains away many bits of DW continuity including the infamous Peter Cushing movies. RTD's also thrown in some future (Smith, Capaldi, Whittaker) and potential future regenerations into his novelization of Rose:

Jake Weary plays gay and does some pretty graphic scenes on TNT's Animal Kingdom (opposite AW's Spencer Treat Clark - that took some getting used to) these days. I believed Zimmer when she said, both in public and in her book later on, that she wanted him to be able to have a normal life and not deal with the grind of a long-term contract. I do think there may also have been some concern about him taking abuse as a young teenager or getting pigeonholed, which I can understand from his mother. Regardless, Van Hansis was mediocre. And it was beyond me how often ATWT would run from any good drama in its last years, trying to shut down any promising storyline immediately. The Luke thing with Laurence Lau - that was dynamite. Gone in, what, three, four weeks?

Leon Russom (AW) has a brief but memorable role in A Quiet Place.

Deadspin covers the revolt at Sinclair Broadcasting.

Every kid is different. I knew I looked at and was fascinated by boys a lot from around that age or close to it, but did I know I definitely was into boys most of all? Not until maybe 12 or 13, and I didn't make a definitive determination on my orientation until I was 17 or so. I can't say what every kid experiences. I think she is erring on the side of caution in her remarks when dealing with a 9 year old child character and actor on a charged topic, and I think that's prudent. Easiest and smartest, IMO, to say Mark will figure himself out in his own time. Which most of us did.

I am gay and I get what she's saying. She's gay herself.

I get his point. Sadly I am not inclined to believe we are presently at a point in history where conversation is a prelude to mutual resolution. I would've believed that two years ago. Today I think it is either victory or annihilation. That being said: Do I think shows like this serve a purpose to bridge some of the divide? Maybe. So long as we never forget what we are actually dealing with beneath the initial layers of reachable soft support on the right - fascists, racists and white supremacists.

That kid is already stealing the show. And he is preternaturally poised.

Trump has no strategy.

In other news: John Goodman gets very candid about his alcoholism during the later years of the original series. He's ten years sober. Keep scrolling past the various pix and crap, there's more article there than it looks.

From her new cover album:

I think ODAAT's commentary on Trump is mostly implicit because the nature of the show's racial makeup tells the whole story. When they talk about immigration and so forth, you know instantly what it's about. It's also (mostly) implicit on Roseanne so far, but clearly they plan to dig deeper shortly.

That is a good piece. And the truth is, too few folks on either side of the vocal online debate have actually watched it, or understood who is writing or producing it. Roseanne herself is the political outlier in that group. It is not right wing propaganda. I understand and agree with concerns by Ira Madison or Roxane Gay about how the show potentially allows media outlets to play 'both sides' and go back to stroking the white heartland voter. I think that is a danger and if the show were ever to turn into Trump apologia I would drop it. I have mixed feelings about the whole push this week by cultural critics on either side. But I also think, honestly, that kind of responsibility is too much to put on any one sitcom. I think Roseanne is a complicated, messy show for a complicated, messy time. I see a lot of good and a lot of potential in it. I think making is a shocking, bold choice and an impressive one. And I think everyone - even ABC, which cites it in an article above as part of their attempt to reconnect with the white working class post-Trump - is trying to fit into a left or right culture war box that the show just refuses to adhere to. Certainly Sara Gilbert won't. Maybe that's irresponsible today, I don't know. But I also think entertainment can still be allowed to be that while exploring either end of the divide. I think Netflix's One Day at a Time is the modern, progressive heir to the original Roseanne. It's a little more frenetic and over-earnest whereas this show is dryer and more weathered, but it's quite good. And I think if there's room for ODAAT there is room for the more conflicted new Roseanne. And I would like to think both the new show and the lead actress will find their way to a clearer path. I think it is worth watching, for all of them, especially Sara Gilbert and little Ames McNamara, but even Roseanne herself, who seems like she is slowly finding herself onscreen.

2018, everybody.

That's a great article, thanks. I never forgot those scenes. They floored me at the time.

I'm sure David Faustino is waiting at the Fox lot as we speak. The rest of 'em, I dunno. Katey Sagal is still happily married to Kurt Sutter, Christina Applegate is doing fine in film and TV in her character roles and Ed O'Neill could well just be worn out of the grind. But it could happen, sure. Someone at the network has to be thinking about it this week. What's irritating is they'd never bother to roll out the same red carpet to Living Single, Martin or In Living Color (which they canned a revival of a few years ago).

I would kill for Living Single to come back. But Erika Alexander is very busy these days with her comics work - not only her original projects and maybe some novels(?), but she is doing part of the Buffy comic revival as well with Joss Whedon, IIRC. I also think Fox today remains pretty ambivalent on black material, even post-Empire. I can't remember. I think it was Mark. D.J. she said got published or made a movie.

I know they plan to address Mark's death more. But I remember Roseanne used to talk about him dying in Iraq.

Based on some reviews, my suspicion is the character with the opioid addiction is either Becky or Roseanne herself. According to a BTS interview,

I hated Friends and don't think it'll ever happen. But I said that about Twin Peaks and Murphy Brown. Family Matters was almost always terrible. Please never let it come back. Tisha Campbell keeps claiming Martin may happen but I'm not sure she has any idea what she's talking about. Living Single, I can't see it sadly. ETA: Apparently Martin himself has also hinted at a reboot, but I still think they're just trying to drum up interest.

It's not gonna happen. It didn't when the producers tried to float it in '88 (after the episode where Jackie and Dan ran the house together while Roseanne was away) and Laurie Metcalf and John Goodman both went straight to Roseanne about it, and it will never happen now. If the cast stood in solidarity with her through all her insanity for a decade on the air, they'll do so again today.

Coltin Scott/Stephen Martines/Coltin Fish Tacos (Nikolas #2, GH/Tony #2, GL) is a con man.