I don't know what I feel about this. Since the final season and the ending of the show wasn't that good. If this does happen I hope it fixes the ending of the original series.
https://www.yahoo.com/tv/roseanne-revival-eyed-abc-182355878.html
I don't know what I feel about this. Since the final season and the ending of the show wasn't that good. If this does happen I hope it fixes the ending of the original series.
https://www.yahoo.com/tv/roseanne-revival-eyed-abc-182355878.html
Maybe the rest of Season 9 just set a ridiculously low bar, but I liked the finale. It actually gave an ending to the series instead of just resetting everything at the end as a lot of sitcoms tend to do, and it at least attempted to explain away the ridiculous rest of Season 9.
That being said, they would have to undo the ending to make it work anyway, since [spoilers for the (almost exactly) 20 year old series finale incoming]
! It's revealed that for the entire series we weren't watching the life of Roseanne Connor but instead we were watching a fictional account of her life she told us in book form. She says several elements in the book were changed to be more interesting. Jackie is really a lesbian but her mom isn't, her two girls actually married the opposite Healy brothers (Becky with David, Darlene with Mark) and the biggest one, Dan's heart attack at the end of Season 8 killed him.
Does this need a spoiler?… I guess there's SOMEONE who might consider it one...
Anyway, they'll have to figure out a way to undo that obviously as a revival with everyone onboard won't work otherwise.
The way I see it, they only have three real options:
! 1: Say the massive changes Roseanne said she made were themselves made up. It's actually kinda in character for her to add in a lie to the book in order to try to force an emotional punch at the end. Then you can just say Season 9 never happened, neither did any of the stuff Roseanne said she "Changed" at the end. Just start with a scene where she's writing a new book and then Dan comes in asking about it and have him be like "You aren't gonna kill me again are you?" and you're done.
! 2: Say she's writing a sequel to the original book and the new show is the sequel. This means she has to explain away Season 9 some other way, since I don't think anyone wants them to still be rich, but it could work. This might feel cheap to some people however.
! 3: Ghost Dan.
What I about to say have some spoilers from the final season. I read interview that Roseanne did a few years ago about an revival series that would recon some stuff.
! The major of the recons that Dan would've fake his death.
The only question now is which Becky are we going to get.
! The major of the recons that Dan would've fake his death.
Yeah, I found the bit where she said this here but it's very obviously just some off the cuff ideas and not anything real because there are some contradictions:
! - David leaves Darlene for a woman half his age
! These two contradict each other since Dan died in the "Real" version of events and David ended up with Darlene in the Book version. If this takes place in the book version there's no need to retcon Dan's death as he never died, and if it's the "Real" version there'd be no need to break Darlene and David up since Darlene married Mark, whom they would obviously have to kill off due to the actor actually having died.
! I think this was more off the cuff jokes/thoughts about it rather than her sitting down and figuring out a proper way to write this… I think they'd avoid it since Dan faking his death and putting his family through that kind of heartache would be a really shitty thing for his character to have done and I don't see how they make a comedy out of it.
The only question now is which Becky are we going to get.
Lacy Goranson does still act occasionally but it's sparse. Sarah Chalke is way more prolific and active. If I was to put money on it, I'd assume Chalke…. personally I think she's the better Becky anyway...
She's given a couple interviews over the years and those ideas have been fairly consistent actually, rather than off the cuff.
I think 15 years ago she had Mark die in Iraq, and then 10 years ago had it being DJ, but otherwise those things have come up a couple times, I'd be amazed if they didn't go through on those ideas, as terrible and lame as they all sound. And given that its been so long I don't really know how you would have Dan fake his death at this point…. had it been a new season immediately after thelast that'd be one thing, but it all seems a bit much to work around the last five minutes 20 years later. However, it's been 20 years without any real successes, maybe Roseanne can actually be told "no" by the real writers again.
That said, the ending of the old show pretty much screws things. Season 9 was terrible and they retconned that as just a dream, but then in the same brush retconned the rest of the series while they were at it. Really don't know how to get around that at all other than doing a two layer "it was just a dream," Or just ignore it entirely and pick it up and don't a dress anything from the old show. It has been 20 years after all, I don't know how much they'd have to deal with.
Easiest fix: The entirety of Season 9 was just an extended Halloween episode and the whole thing about killing Dan was just a prank.
It's a shame because purely going "season 9 was all an escape to deal with Dan's death" would have been powerful and really worked. But "Oh, and actually everything about the show is made up and wrong" just kind of spits on the entire series, the characters you'd spent a decade with, by turning it into just a show. WHich, of course it was, but…. for the first six or seven seasons it was pretty grounded outside of the halloween episodes, and even those didn't start really going nuts until later.
Also, when huge chunks of the cast started to be suddenly gay. Nothing wrong with that except that they were doing it to push an agenda (Roseanne's actual real life sister is gay, that's why they wanted to put it onto Jackie but the execs wouldn't let them... so they did it to her mother instead because that's okay somehow?) It's absolutely fine that they had gay characters, its around the same time Ellen came out and Xena was getting a popular response and society in general was finally pushing forward a little into acceptance there.... (and we're still not totally there yet obviously)
except they were very stereotyped over the top gays and that just made the whole show really silly along with its slow decline into farce.
ABC have picked up the Roseanne revival. And the teaser trailer for it is out.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Also both Becky's are going to be involved in the show. Sarah Chalke (the 2nd Becky) will be playing a new character.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/05/16/roseanne-revival-set-for-abc-sarah-chalke-to-play-new-role
Interesting… I like the idea of including Chalk of Goranson is coming back. This to me feels like they can either nail it and it's great, or totally screw it up and it is terrible and tanks... it feels like there isn't much room for a middle ground here...
Three new teasers for Roseanne are out. And the show will starting on March 27th.
!
So, the official stance seems to be pretty much that they're just going to ignore season 9. So no winning the lotto, and no final episode that reveals it was all just a book with everything mixed around and that Dan is dead.
Also Roseanne is a Trump supporter, apparently. (Both in real life and the character.) And that's going to be a major topic of the show.
Whatever the actress feels is fine, but I can't see that character going for Trump. She was super liberal, hated republican policies, called out bullshitters and had lots of gay and minority friends. I just… can't see it.
Well the only thing she has in common with Donald Trump is that both can't sing the national anthem but for different reasons.
So, the official stance seems to be pretty much that they're just going to ignore season 9. So no winning the lotto, and no final episode that reveals it was all just a book with everything mixed around and that Dan is dead.
Also Roseanne is a Trump supporter, apparently. (Both in real life and the character.) And that's going to be a major topic of the show.
Whatever the actress feels is fine, but I can't see that character going for Trump. She was super liberal, hated republican policies, called out bullshitters and had lots of gay and minority friends. I just… can't see it.
I really don't want to watch the show now.
I know the knee jerk reaction from some people to that is "Well, don't focus on the artist, focus on the art" but she's stated that her character WILL be a Trump supporter. One of my favorite shows from my childhood is now going to be Pro-Trump propaganda…. ugh....
I'm especially worried now because the show is supposed to include a Genderfluid kid as one of her Grand kids… With the Trump supporter thing and finding out Roseanne is kindof a piece of shit in general I'm worried the Genderfluid kid is just going to be there to be a punching bag for transphobic jokes and bullshit.
New trailer that aired last night during the Oscars.
The first two episodes of the new season actually been good. Mark already been the highlight of these episodes so far and Dan continues to be great as well.
How heavy is the Alt-Right Propaganda?
Not everything that doesn't share your political views is propaganda from the opposition. Maybe it's just entertainment
Not everything that doesn't share your political views is propaganda from the opposition. Maybe it's just entertainment
Rin might be wondering if the show is going to personally target her demographic! But yeah, just entertainment!
Not everything that doesn't share your political views is propaganda from the opposition. Maybe it's just entertainment
Roseanne is a pretty loud and vocal Trump supporter and appologist. ("He's not racist") It's not just a storyline the writers are doing, its the actress insisting that her pro-Trump viewpoint be part of the show, and being she's the star, she's ultimately going to be right and win any arguments that come up about it.
Even though that's completely at odds with the beliefs of the character, and the show never did politics in the past except in super broad strokes. I'm pretty sure the old show never even mentioned political parties, though the characters leaned liberal.
Which is extra weird since apparently the grandkids are biracial and possibly gay, and the old show was loaded with gay characters and minorities, it was super progressive.
So, when its the topic of the first episode back in 20 years is all about how Roseanne supports Trump, when it's being used as an advertising point to appeal to Trump's base (all the tweets are about how it's a show being headed by Trump support)…
It'd be a different matter entirely if actress Roseanne wasn't loudly vocally pro-Trump, and this was just a story choice they'd made to have drama. Or if she was just a Trump voter rather than a Trump activist, so that it was her opinion, rather than her cause. It's entirely Roseanne's call and in this case, YES, it is propoganda.
Roseanne is a pretty loud and vocal Trump supporter. It's not just a storyline the writers are doing, its the actress insisting that her pro-Trump viewpoint be part of the show.
Even though that's completely at odds with the beliefs of the character, and the show never did politics in the past except in super broad strokes.
So, it's hard to not see this as "Prop trump supporter forces pro-trump opinion into narrative to talk about his good sides." Yes, its propoganda.
Alright. I was looking at it like I wouldn't consider the majority of television entertainment to be liberal propaganda. Like late night talk show hosts, comedy central, etc. I'm not defending the right; I'm liberal. I just think to call their shows propaganda it's only fair to call our shows too, right? And I always thought propaganda was more systematic. Yes her show will show bias to conservatives but so what?
@DemonRin didn't mean to call you out. I obviously don't know you and didn't grasp that was your concern. For one, I didn't consider the show targeting a group of people with hate speech, I figured it would be cliche shallow conservative rhetoric like MAGA.
I just think to call their shows propaganda it's only fair to call our shows too, right?
Did anyone say that they weren't?
And I always thought propaganda was more systematic. Yes her show will show bias to conservatives but so what?
So Rin may not want to watch the show if it's going to push a conservative agenda. Just as I'm sure a lot of Trump supporters don't watch The Late Show or Last Week Tonight.
Propaganda is when you straight up make things up and deny facts to present their narrative. Like Fox News.
Just having an opinion by itself doesn't make something propaganda. Its the implementation of that opinion.
Reporting news, and having an opinion on that news, has some bias, but isn't the same as making it up entirely.
Gotcha. Had no idea Roseanne was such an activist. Please tell me Goodman isn't also?
Far as I know the political beliefs of no one else on the show really come into it. Goodman hasn't been vocal one way or another.
Again, if Roseanne happened to be a Trump supporter and that's the direction they took the show for drama, fine. But when she's an activist about it and its been basically the most heavily advertised part of the show? That's where the potential problem lies and where we worry about it.
I haven't seen the episode yet myself so have no idea how heavy it actually is. Is it as bad as advertised to the point of being propaganda, or is it just a part of the show and the characters having diverse opinions. That's what we want to know.
Honestly im a bit disappointed the new tim allen show was cancelled as it had a pretty decent portrayal of a person conservatives could agree with that wasnt a huge political pandering show. If a show has a conservative on it as the lead you already know its gonna be rural, southern and about the outdoors,. Having a middle class suburban dad take up the ideas of that audience without being too overt filled a niche missing in the sitcom world for a long while. Its not even like they have ti talk politics, just have them grumble about the past and whine about changes and technology and you're 80% there
Part of me thinks a show like king of the hill despite it shooting down bullshit from both sides couldnt get on TV RN as TV execs would worry about a conservatove family and MC that werent shown to be ignorant well-meaning simpletons who learn the horrors of their behavior.
Watched the first two episodes. Not bad, felt like the old show. Actors fell right back into their roles like they never left.
It was NOT propaganda despite the advertising. They didn't even mention Trump by name. (Or Hillary for that matter.) Just that "he promised jobs and shaking things up". Nothing about defending all the awful crap. Jackie insulted Roseanne, Roseanne insulted Jackie, then they moved on.
If that's all that happens with that thread and that was what was needed to keep Roseanne happy, okay I guess.
@Long:
Honestly im a bit disappointed the new tim allen show was cancelled.
It wasn't cancelled. It reached enough episodes for syndication and doing another season would have been way more expensive due to some things with the production company.
It wasn't renewed. Not cancelled. There's a difference.
Watched the first two episodes. Not bad, felt like the old show. Actors fell right back into their roles like they never left.
It was NOT propaganda despite the advertising. They didn't even mention Trump by name. (Or Hillary for that matter.) Just that "he promised jobs and shaking things up". Nothing about defending all the awful crap. Jackie insulted Roseanne, Roseanne insulted Jackie, then they moved on.
If that's all that happens with that thread and that was what was needed to keep Roseanne happy, okay I guess.
It wasn't cancelled. It reached enough episodes for syndication and doing another season would have been way more expensive due to some things with the production company.
It wasn't renewed. Not cancelled. There's a difference.
Oh…looks like I was misinformed by a family member of mine.
Still saw it as kind of an outlier in sitcoms. So there's a level of profitability a show must reach to make it worth the money put into the show? What is the general limit of episodes?
@Long:
Oh…looks like I was misinformed by a family member of mine.
Tim Allen said a thing on a talk show right before it didn't get renewed so conspiracy nuts like to attribute it to that. But… if the show was still profitable what he said wasn't anywhere near damaging enough to get it cancelled on its own.
So there's a level of profitability a show must reach to make it worth the money put into the show?
Well… yeah. You don't put money into a show when it doesn't make money. And shows gets a LOT more expensive after reaching syndication and they have to renew the actor's contracts.
TIm Allen's show in particular had the production company switch so it would have cost way more to keep making new ones.
What is the general limit of episodes?
52 or 65 is the bare minimum for syndication. That's enough to air it daily for 13 weeks and only reloop 4 times in a year.
100 is super syndication and makes a lot more money. After that it becomes much more expensive to keep a thing going. It's why most shows don't go much beyond that.
Tim Allen said a thing on a talk show right before it didn't get renewed so conspiracy nuts like to attribute it to that. But… if the show was still profitable what he said wasn't anywhere near damaging enough to get it cancelled on its own.
Well... yeah. You don't put money into a show when it doesn't make money. And shows gets a LOT more expensive after reaching syndication and they have to renew the actor's contracts.
TIm Allen's show in particular had the production company switch so it would have cost way more to keep making new ones.
53 or 65 is the bare minimum for syndication. That's enough to air it daily for 13 weeks and only reloop 4 times in a year.
100 is super syndication and makes a lot more money. After that it becomes much more expensive to keep a thing going. It's why most shows don't go much beyond that.
The second line had me forgetting to quote the syndication cost as a factor so it seemed so obviously self explanatory. So for all the seinfelds and friends type of shows and heck even king of queens and what not do they end up making the bulk of their cash after the show is over because I swore seinfled had some kind of agreement that led to the reruns earning people involved a ton of money. Know the habee to pay te actors enough and shoot all the sets and stuff but theres a decent amount of 60+/100+ series so for the cost of syndication there has to be some payoff because of it right.
I kind of am a novice about these things
If a show is wildly popular they can throw money at it to get it to 100 or 200 episodes, but a series generally needs to be suuuper popular to get past 6 or 7 seasons, or like an iconic brand to the network, and usually 5 is much more the cutoff. 10 years is pretty much the absolute upper limit for a wide variety of reasons.
I think the only reason animated shows like Simpsons, SOuth Park, and Family Guy are able to keep going endlessly is because the cast doesn't age, and the actor salaries don't spike ridiculously every couple years. (The Simpsons actors took huuuge paycuts recently to keep it going in fact.)
The ratings for the first two episodes did really great.
Oh it is actually already airing? Thought they just started shooting, lol.
It wasn't cancelled. It reached enough episodes for syndication and doing another season would have been way more expensive due to some things with the production company.
It wasn't renewed. Not cancelled. There's a difference.
That show was also made by an outside production company, which made them even more reluctant to spend that much more money on it. If ABC owned it, they could have recouped those additional expenses with syndication fees, digital rights, and boxsets but those go to somebody else.
Hope everyone is enjoying the new Roseanne show
How heavy is the Alt-Right Propaganda?
https://decider.com/2018/03/27/roseanne-reboot-trump-episode/
In short: Roseanne is a Trump supporter, but the show still espouses the liberal views of the old show (it has a biracial kid and another kid is non-binary and is encouraged to be who he is). But as the article points out, that just makes no fucking sense. Basically Barr is just an old hag who isn't so much an ideological right-winger as much as she is a deranged conspiracy theorist,
Not everything that doesn't share your political views is propaganda from the opposition. Maybe it's just entertainment
Well-
Snipload of truth
This basically. Robby nailed it. I will admit to some joking snark (I said "Alt Right" and I'm not sure Roseanne is a full blown Nazi) but yeah.
It's interesting that they appear to have downplayed the Trump supporter angle considering she's been making such a big deal out of it in interviews and stuff. If it wasn't a big deal in the show, why has she been defending making the character a Trump supporter when she could have just said "We touch on it once and never again, and Jackie is the anti-Trump voice and she's treated as just as valid and then we move on" and it would have made a lot of people less nervous about this?
I was worried about her Trump support, but I'm actually more worried about the supposed "Gender Non-conforming kid" they have on the show apparently. I've not seen it yet and I'm terrified because Roseanne is a transphobic piece of shit.
I'm worried the kid is only going to be in the show to be a punching bag for jokes, but they'll have Roseanne stand up for them once or twice to make it look like it's ok that they keep calling them a tranny and make bathroom jokes about them.
@Long:
Oh…looks like I was misinformed by a family member of mine.
Still saw it as kind of an outlier in sitcoms. So there's a level of profitability a show must reach to make it worth the money put into the show? What is the general limit of episodes?
Robby didn't have all the exact info so here it is:
When the show was originally created, they set up a contract where it was produced by two companies. Fox, who handled the majority of the production costs, and ABC who aired it on their show, handled distribution and marketing etc. That contract was for 6 years.
The whole 6 years the show got solid but not stellar ratings.
Solid but not stellar ratings means decent but not great advertising revenue. Add to that, two production companies means profits get split between them. I don't know what the exact breakdown was, I don't know if it was exactly 50-50, or more like 70-30 or anything, but either way it was split, meaning suddenly those decent profits look even lower to each company.
When the 6 year contract was up, both companies reassessed the situation and one of them (Fox) decided it wasn't worth it, especially because they took on the lion's share of production which means they probably spent the most.
ABC was interested in continuing, which is why they stalled and didn't outright cancel it, but ultimately decided that the show just didn't make enough of a profit to justify them needing to start spending a LOT more on making it now without Fox.
The "They cancelled it because conservatives are bad!" conspiracy was started because Tim Allen made a joke about how being a Conservative in Hollywood was like being a Jew in 1930s Germany on Jimmy Kimmel and got some flack for it a week before ABC made it official they weren't picking the show up, and since conspiracy-minded people don't have that part of the brain that understands that Correlation doesn't equal causation, the two things got linked despite a lot of evidence to show that isn't the case… like the fact that ABC are owned by Disney and Tim's conservatism
., but I'm actually more worried about the supposed "Gender Non-conforming kid" they have on the show apparently.
They handle it okay. They worry about the kid being beat up in school, but everyone in the family is cool with it. Dan is a bit weirded out about it, but the same way he was about gay people in the old show. Weirded out but not hateful.
It seems like Sarah Gilbert is in complete control and this is basically the "DARLENE" show, and it's holding to the values of the original series which were progressive and queer friendly long before that was at all socially acceptable. It just happens to have Roseanne in it who is apparently a problem in real life, but her views don't seem to be sliding in much.
I'm willing to give the show a chance on account of… basically everyone else in the cast. See where it goes for this season at least.
But so far it's not Roseanne's mouthpiece, she's just an actor on it. Maybe thats why she's being so vocal in interviews.
Not about politics and trump? GOOD.
Another great episode tonight. Dan had a lot of great one liners tonight.
yeah but Roseanne stole the show in that one scene.
Dang, the last two episodes made me tear up a bit about Becky and David and what happened to both of them after the original series. It was good character development. Episodes like these is why this show was great in its original run.
i was more surprised that Bev was back.
Ah, the token David episode, where you know he's not actually sticking around because he's making millions on BBT and this is a one off cameo.
Now we just need to actually find out what DJ's deal is. They have no idea what to do with that daughter of his, she's just there.
i was more surprised that Bev was back.
Same here, she was the highlight of the new episode. I hope Leon make appearance soon.
The revival was renewed for Season 11, but has now been cancelled because Roseanne is a horrible person.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/business/media/roseanne-barr-offensive-tweets.html
Well that sucks mostly because I liked everyone else in the cast and they were getting work.
But yes, calling people muslim monkeys and also implying Chelsea Clinton is a secret Nazi that murders Jews are a bit much.
Can't imagine why Disney would have a problem with that.
lol just the other day I saw some horrible brain addled conspiracy bullshit she was tweeting about some British idiot, and was thinking "man, how is the company tolerating this".
I guess I kinda got my answer!