Jump to content

"The Conners" Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

 

The sneering tone toward ODAAT in that article is offputting, if not surprising, given that CNN is a right wing network which has only feinted toward a liberal view after Trump put a foot in Jeff Zucker's ass. You don't have to be bilingual to understand all the jokes on the show (if you did I wouldn't be bothered, but you don't), and political topics are discussed briefly. And that he thinks talking about depression is also a sign of liberalism speaks volumes about his worldview.

 

It's questionable to compare Netflix to a broadcast television network. With that said, he's right - a lot of the people who claim to be progressive would rather just talk about the same handful of shows over and over again on Netflix, like Stranger Things or The Crown, and talk about how much they hate Fuller House, rather than support ODAAT. But it is what it is. 

 

I do think that some liberals have used Roseanne as a cudgel in ways that hurt their cause more than help - like that Slate person (although what do you expect from Slate) who ranted about the show having a boy who dresses in girl's clothes but still identifies as a boy. I also skimmed through some gushy piece somewhere about how you need to avoid Roseanne and watch Queer Eye and Queer Eye is everything you should ever want and blah blah blah blah, when Queer Eye is essentially just tokens living vicariously through straight people, for straight viewers. I think it's a fine show, and I watched it sometimes the first time around, but if Roseanne had gay men who popped up just to tell straight people how to dress and what to cook, it would be blasted to pieces.

 

I have no real desire to watch the revival (although I might watch the ones that talk about Mark) but I think a lot of the people who claim to hate it the most are secretly gleeful at its success, because it means they get on their high horses. The same high horses that rode roughshod in 2016 and helped get us where we are now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

My point wasn't that people can't like all three and more that a lot of people tend to just focus on the few watercooler Netflix shows and not the rest, including a lot of people who would probably enjoy ODAAT if they ever watched. But I don't think the latter will ever be a watercooler type show so I'm mostly just happy they have managed to get three seasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think ODAAT has been a watercooler show for a certain segment online and on social media - I just don't think it's as popular, obviously, as some others. But certainly most of the same critics praise and spotlight all of the above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

IMO, this article is trash from the very beginning. You can't compare Roseanne, a revival of a show that ran for a massively successful nine-season run when TV was still TV, to a Netflix exclusive or, really, any network series that has debuted in the last 10 years. Roseanne's ratings are not a commentary on politics. They're proof that there's been an audience craving a continuation of these characters for the last 20 years. ODAAT or any of the other series never and will never have that built-in advantage.

I was okay with last week's episode but I do agree with everyone who says it seemed like a blatant love letter to the older, more conservative segment of the audience. I do not know what we're supposed to make of Harris. I loved Emma Kenney in the early seasons of Shameless, but I'm not enjoying her too much here. Darlene has never been my favorite, and she's definitely not here, either.

Looking forward to watching the latest ep. The beautiful and talented Glenn Quinn is missed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah, I agree. I used the word interesting to describe the article for that reason.  It had some information I found interesting, but I thought the person who wrote it was kind of a jerk.

 

I think the idea that liberals lean toward escapist shows might be true. I certainly do. I'm also not that interested in comedy overall, but i watched them as a kid, so the reboots can get me interested if they are good.

It annoyed me that they tried to valid spanking as a good parenting choice.  Is there even one valid study that shows it to be anything other than harmful? At the same time there is a huge number of people in this country that considerate a valid option.  While I don't like it, it's the reality, and it's the type of issue you don't see all that often on TV. At least I don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

One of the reasons people were upset the show had Roseanne say spanking was a valid use of punishment was because it went against the character.  In the original show, Roseanne was against spanking and the one time she did spank DJ.. she felt horrible and tearfully said she was sorry for losing it on him.  

 

I will say that Roseanne is fairly balanced in terms of showing both liberal and not so liberal ideals thus far.  There are a lot of my friends that won't watch the show, and they're aghast that I would watch it.. but I remind them that my family growing up was essentially the Conner family (right down to the safe sofa though we replaced it in the 90s with a nicer sofa)... and that I grew up right next to the suburb that inspired Lanford.

 

I did watch a few episodes of Blackish.. and it's a good show.. but it's in a bad time slot up against CBS on Tuesdays.  ODAAT... I loved the original when it was rerun.. and I kind of wished that this show had taken a different title because it's a completely different show then the original (it's a victim of being a remake... and we all know the stigma of remakes even if they are decent).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I agree about it going against Roseanne's character. There's a few characteristics they're forgetting from the original. As you said, Roseanne was against spanking because her own father used physical violence against her (something they didn't introduce until the 4th season, but it still remained throughout the series). 

 

Also, in the first episode of this reboot, the family prayed. The Conners were never a religious family. See the Season 6 episode titled "I Pray The Lord My Stove to Keep."  DJ discovers religion and asks what religion they are and Dan spouts off all the different denominations of their families. 

 

DJ: So what are we? 

Roseanne: Uh... we believe in being good. So basically we're good people.

Dan: Yeah, but we're not practicing. 

 

The only time I recall them praying was after they won the lottery, which didn't happen after all. 

 

One other tidbit I'm not fond of is dumbing down the characters because they're from small-town, USA.  Roseanne, Jackie etc. were always aware enough to know how to pronounce something like "fabergé egg." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Them not knowing...or was it Dan...what popurri was.....was dumb as hell. Sorry but they are middle class family? They should know what popurri is.

Edited by Soapsuds
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

When I was growing up, my parents weren't into religion.  After my mom passed away, my dad found his way into religion and I was surprised when he started praying before a meal because he'd never done it before nor had expressed much interest in religion, etc.

 

Maybe if the show had Darlene expressing surprise that they were praying, etc... and maybe Roseanne clarify that she and Dan found prayer and God during hard times (recession/almost losing the house, etc)... then I could have bought it.

 

What's even funnier is that neither Dan/Roseanne know anything about words, etc... yet know how to use smart phones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Thanks @JAS0N47 for the 1973-1979 pre-emptions. Interesting that there were no Christmas pre-emptions 1973-1975 and 1978. Christmas 1976 was a Saturday and Christmas 1977 was a Sunday.  
    • Please register in order to view this content

    • Thanks @DRW50 for the video. I guess that is the closest we will get to pre-1979 Roger/Holly storylines.
    • Yeah that's likely the case and it will all be awful.
    • I appreciate your POV and ideas here. I don't, however, trust Josh Griffith to make this anything like a good story. My guess is that much of it will be off-camera and that we'll have to be happy with Mariah retelling the nightmare in bits and pieces. Meanwhile, Tessa will still be strumming her damn guitar with Daniel. Ugh. I know I'm negative about this show. I am hate watching with every fiber of my being, and there's nothing about it that's working for me. I never recall Y&R being worse.
    • A batch of photos from Episode #67 which aired Thursday June 5 in USA. Some are scene pictures, and some are behind-the-scenes. https://www.paramountpressexpress.com/cbs-entertainment/shows/beyond-the-gates/photos?episode=25710 Posting because there's a pic of director Michael V. Pomarico; and a pic of director Steven Williford whose photo caption says "J. Steven Williford".
    • Please register in order to view this content

       
    • I think the gross ickiness is Josh Griffith's intention. At birth, Ian Ward stole Mariah from Sharon, so that Sharon knew only of the Cassie twin and not the Mariah twin.  Sharon gave up Cassie for adoption at birth, never knowing that Mariah existed. When Ian Ward stole baby Mariah, he had her be raised by a woman member of his cult. She grew up in his cult. Years later, after Mariah was an adult in Genoa City and had left him, he tried to kidnap her to marry him himself, I sort of remember some icky scenes where he had arranged a wedding, but she escaped or was rescued -- it was so gross that I chose to forget it, and I don't want to look up the details. Mariah is feeling traumatized/triggered by Ian Ward being in Genoa City several months ago, because he was obsessed with her, and he terrorized her loved ones, interacted with Tessa, and drugged Sharon, which ultimately resulted in the death of Heather -- causing the grief of Daniel and Lucy. None of that was Mariah's fault. But she was so horrified by what happened, that she feels she did something wrong that caused this hateful villain to continue to obsess about her.   Based on small comments that Mariah made recently, I think she feels completely worthless. I gather that when she was away on the business trip a month or two ago, all of what happened with Ian Ward and Heather's death just hit her all at once and she was mentally/emotionally collapsing, and just felt unable to call for help.  During the business trip she sat in her hotel room and spiraled more, feeling more and more worthless and afraid. Finally she started drinking at a bar, and that's when the creepy old man approached her.  By that point, she wasn't in her right mind, and started interacting with the guy.  Either she thought he was Ian, or she thought he was someone like Ian, and she would be *required* to flirt with him in a role play, and do what he commanded, almost like old programming being reactivated.  Or perhaps just simple self-loathing playing out. I don't know if the guy actually knew Ian or Jordan, or if he was a random stranger.  But Mariah's fear/loathing/subconscious chaos kicked in. And then... well that's as far as her flashbacks have aired so far. She can't bear to face the rest of whatever it was.  I gather that in the coming episodes, we'll (eventually) find out what happened next as we see more of the icky flashbacks. --------------- The rest of this post is only my speculation: I think that she felt like she was supposed to have sex with him but didn't want to, and may have tried to kill him instead. Or he r*ped her.  Or they didn't have sex at all, but it's all convoluted in her mind.  Something horrible happened but I don't think it was her fault.  If the man died, maybe she covered it up?  I really don't know, I'm just speculating ideas. At any rate, I'm totally convinced that this is NOT a conventional "cheating storyline" where someone willingly has sex outside their relationship. ----------------- This is basically Josh Griffith's obsession with dark storylines, creepy villains, and terrible writing of "mental health issues".
    • The most we ever saw was on the "Roger years" tape.

      Please register in order to view this content

       
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy