"The Conners" Discussion Thread

[Khan]

 

I get what you mean, lol.

 

Nevertheless, it felt so weird not to see Roseanne, even if the Roseanne Conner of the reboot/revival had little in common with the Roseanne Conner of the original series.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Khan

[Khan]

 

Emma Kenney's good, but the kid who plays Mark is just a little too "camera-ready," for lack of a better word.  Lecy and Sara (and even Michael) were more believable when THEY were younger, because they didn't come across as showbiz kids.  That was one of the best attributes about the original series, IMO.

 

 

You know, I still think this actually might be a good -- no, make that great -- idea?  As of right now, Jackie remains unattached; and Andy...well, who the hell knows what he's up to.  Clooney could pop in for an arc that explores a Booker/Jackie reunion without keeping him from other commitments.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Khan

[DRW50]

Maybe they could bring back Michael O'Keefe. I didn't care for the way the original show treated the character. 

[DRW50]

A look at data on who watched the premiere and what they thought about it.

 

https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/heres-how-viewers-reacted-conners-who-was-watching

 

I watched a few old episodes today, for the first time in a very very long time. They were two of the episodes that focused on Dan's mother.

 

 

 

 

Seeing these again also reminds me that Dan had a lot more humor and personality in the early seasons compared to the second episode. I grew tired of him as well through the passing years. I suppose it's true to life though. 

 

I think by the time of the second one they were already doing all the Bev stuff that I had no real patience for (S&M, lesbianism, etc.) but this episode has none of that, fortunately.

 

The first episode is still when they were mostly trying to be a "traditional" sitcom, with a bit of edge. That worked so well for them (even though I think the shift starting around season 3 or 4 also worked, and was probably needed by that point) and the episode holds up very well today. 

 

You can tell that there were probably zero plans to make Roseanne and Jackie's father an abuser until later retcons. He was a pain in the ass, but that was about it. 

 

I had forgotten that Crystal had an older child. I guess they haven't mentioned any of that in the new season.

 

For some reason I had remembered Roseanne's speech to her father took place in their old house. I don't know why...

 

(that speech was probably Barr's best moment as an actress)

 

 

If I went back and watched full seasons now I'm not sure how I'd feel but I think season 5 was the last really good season for me. 

 

(that Jackie Thomas Show plug at the end didn't age well, did it...)

Edited October 19, 2018 by DRW50

[Vee]

I think Seasons 6 and even 7 have some good stuff. I think 7-8 are mostly a wash with a few exceptions.

 

I think the show always chafed at the traditional sitcom stuff in S1. It's fine, but it's not as good as it started to become by the end of the year going into Season 2.

 

As for Jackie,

Please register in order to view this content

I know they were hoping to get Clooney to do another return as Booker last season and I still hope they can.

 

I do wonder if we'll get to see Lonnie or Crystal's son with Ed (I can't remember the name - Ed Jr.?). It wouldn't surprise me since they've already dug as deep as Chuck and Anne-Marie. Last I recall seeing Lonnie was in the ep when Dan and Ed reconciled in... Season 7?

Edited October 19, 2018 by Vee

[Vee]

Lecy talks her reaction to what happened with Roseanne - 'we're screwed':

 

 

I understand her conflict on Roseanne (who she's known since childhood) and not wanting to believe that woman is a racist while acknowledging the vile racism of her statement - I don't agree with it, but I get it. I personally think Roseanne has become a racist for a variety of reasons while still holding many contradictory ideas in her mind, and I think it's sad. And I'm not surprised that they haven't spoken since.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Vee

[DRW50]

I hadn't seen that. It's good to hear more about her story for this season. The Dan and Becky relationship I don't remember getting as much focus in later years so it will be nice to see again. 

 

I liked her answer about reaction to The Conners - she can't begin to guess and will leave it up to college students to study.

 

Not that this has anything to do with the above, but I just read that Tom Arnold's aunt played the "other woman" of Roseanne and Jackie's father. I never knew that. 

[ChitHappens]

Can Joan Collins return for the funeral (if they show it)?  I'd certainly tune in for that!  

[DRW50]

 

They should say Ronnie is the mayor or something. 

[Khan]

 

Me neither.  Maybe that'll change one day, but I hope not before someone gives Rosey that true come-to-Jesus talk she's needed since 1989.

 

We've said this already, so it probably doesn't bear repeating.  Nevertheless, given Rosey's penchant for outrageous, self-destructive behavior, I believe she was bound to go off the proverbial rails, sooner or later.  She's always been pathologically afraid of her own success; so, if anyone was shocked by her tweet, then I suggest they haven't been paying attention.

 

The thing is, though, had this happened BEFORE the advent of social media and BEFORE an African-American woman was running her network, then I think Rosey would have been allowed to remain on the show.  Yes, she would have caught hell for saying what she said (if not on something like Twitter, then maybe to a writer for some magazine, or during an on-air interview with some bobblehead from "Entertainment Tonight").  However, the suits at ABC, who still would have been all-white and all-male at that point, would have jumped on her let-me-go-on-an-apology-tour plan in a heartbeat.

 

But, like I said, that was in an era when the likes of Channing Dungey weren't running major TV networks; and even though the revival series was bringing big(ish) ratings and ad dollars to ABC, at the end of the day, Dungey is still a black woman, and black women are just not here for anyone's bullshit.  Period.

 

One more note:

 

I've said this before as well, but I've never bought this image of Rosey as an enlightened feminist who is always bucking the white, male establishment.  I mean, you offer this narrative of being the star and namesake of your network's biggest hit series; someone who can hire and fire others at will, while simultaneously making "the big swinging dicks" at the network cringe and quake with fear because YOU hold all the power and they don't.  Yet, you never employ a female show runner, even though your series has a strong, female-centric POV; you treat your female AND male writers and other staff so horribly that many end up in therapy and/or swear off ever working in the business again; and when different people bring up the fact that your show, which is set ostensibly in the midwest and around working-class people, hardly ever includes minorities or those who have been marginalized and disenfranchised by so-called white Christian men, either on-screen or off, your response is always, "Well, I want(ed) to, but those jerks at the network won't/wouldn't let me."

 

Contrast her track record with Sara Gilbert's, who, as EP/co-star of the new series, has had at least one female (Whitney Cummings) running the writers' room; an African-American lesbian (Wanda Sykes) contributing to the scripts; two other, AA actresses as part of the regular cast (and a part of the Conner family to boot!); and a set of recurring characters (the new Muslim neighbors) who are most decidedly NOT white OR Christian (even though they often ended up being the butt of Roseanne's Archie Bunker-like jokes).  Now THAT, ladies and gentlemen (and Rosey), is feminism.

Edited October 19, 2018 by Khan

[BetterForgotten]

Um......?

 

 

[John]

Boo-F'in Hoo

[DRW50]

That piece won't do a lot to stop the criticisms of Vice's leanings...

[Vee]

I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying, Khan, but in fairness Roseanne usually was the de facto female showrunner at the old show. Her word was law at the show above all, and she dumped countless EPs. She also did employ a lot of women and yes, a fair few minorities in the writers' room - not enough, but more than was the norm I believe for the late '80s through the early-mid '90s on a hit network sitcom not belonging to FOX. I also felt that for the first 4-5 years the minority presence on the show was pretty solid - again, for the times and a show of that era. James Pickens, Adilah Barnes, etc. all recurred often. Was it perfect? Absolutely not. But it also sure wasn't Full House or Friends or Coach - or even Cheers.

[Khan]

 

But, there's a difference between participating in and running a writers' room, and merely farting on scripts you think are garbage and demanding rewrites on the set.  And she didn't do the latter (or reduce writers to mere numbers, because she didn't want to bother learning their names), because she cared about the quality of the writing either.

 

Read Laurie Gelman's thoughts here, if you haven't already.  (I had heard about the farting on scripts before I did; I'm glad she confirmed it.)

 

And I refuse to believe she hired any writers who weren't Caucasian or Jewish.  (I'm a credits watcher.  I know better.)  Unless those other writers were working w/o any credit (which is wrong), the ethnic, racial and even gender composition of her writing staffs were never "more than was the norm."  If anything, they were about "inclusive" or "diverse" as every other show out there, then and now.