|
|
Post by Binky on May 30, 2018 19:33:57 GMT -4
I am glad ABC has to pay. Roseanne's instability AND her racist conspiracy-promoting twitter were not secrets before the reboot. They get what they deserve.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 28, 2024 2:30:16 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2018 20:04:55 GMT -4
I just wish the MSM wouldn't give her so much attention. They contributed to the hyper-politicization on her show, practically begging Trump fans to watch it whether they actually wanted to or not, and now with the cancellation the media continues to contribute to the martyrdom that Roseanne and Trumpites thrive on. I didn't watch the show, but from what I understand, the show Roseanne had a relatively balanced approach towards sociopolitical issues with other viewpoints represented by other characters whereas Roseanne the person continued going about behaving like a public spokesperson for 4Chan. The show should have been allowed to be just be what it is, a serious-skewed sitcom with a mentally ill star who is difficult to work with, and let the ratings fall where they may and eventually die its own natural, quiet death. Everything doesn't have to be about politics. Sometimes people are just sick assholes who live to get a rise out of people. The worst thing to do is give them the attention they crave.
|
|
|
|
Post by laurenj on May 30, 2018 22:01:32 GMT -4
I guess we don't need to feel too sorry for Sara Gilbert, Laurie Metcalf or John Goodman. The Hollywood Reporter says ABC has to pay them their $350,000 per episode for next season regardless of the show's cancellation. They were each paid $250,000 per episode this season. Some of the writing staff are also supposed to be paid for most of next season. Some lawyers might have to get involved in order to get ABC to pay though. Just those three from the cast? That's a shame, since they're the three who are most gainfully employed otherwise. The cancellation hurts the other non/less-working actors so much more. More importantly, does Roseanne also still get paid? True. The original Roseanne was not overtly political at all, the reboot definitely included more politics in the earliest episodes but did include characters supporting all different sides and it seemed like they were moving away from that as the episodes went on and getting back to the family dynamics that the original show thrived on. |
|
|
|
Post by lea1977 on May 30, 2018 22:03:39 GMT -4
I just read online that the rumor is that ABC may consider a spinoff?? It would be nice if it would just focus on Becky, Darlene and DJ and of course Jackie. Darlene trying to be a single mom and find her writing passion, Becky now over 40 trying to reinvent herself and maybe even mend her broken heart and DJ, he and Geena raising their daughter and facing the challenges that all biracial couples do. I am glad that Roseanne is gone, I think a spinoff opens up a lot of interesting possibilities.
|
|
madangela
Blueblood
We made it! Welcome, President Biden!
Posts: 1,858
Mar 20, 2006 13:52:38 GMT -4
|
Post by madangela on May 30, 2018 22:46:21 GMT -4
Sometimes I think Roseanne is a surprisingly good actor, and yet other times during this reboot I thought she seemed flat, with cold dead eyes. I wonder if there is a substance abuse issue or something??
I actually did not think the reboot seemed pro-Trump. To me, the characters were struggling in realistic ways that are due to our current political mess. I guess it’s possible to see that as portraying all the situations that Trump Almighty is fixing, it it sure didn’t come across like that to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by smitten on May 30, 2018 23:12:02 GMT -4
If they do a spin off, bring back George Clooney to romance Jackie again.
In all seriousness, when the news alert appeared on my phone yesterday that this show was cancelled I felt such a sense of relief and schaden. With this yesterday and Weinstein’s indictment by a grand jury today...I can only imagine how it will feel when Trump is finally gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on May 30, 2018 23:19:54 GMT -4
This is my favorite tweet for how the show can continue without Roseanne:
|
|
|
|
Post by laurenj on May 30, 2018 23:27:19 GMT -4
Sometimes I think Roseanne is a surprisingly good actor, and yet other times during this reboot I thought she seemed flat, with cold dead eyes. I wonder if there is a substance abuse issue or something?? I actually did not think the reboot seemed pro-Trump. To me, the characters were struggling in realistic ways that are due to our current political mess. I guess it’s possible to see that as portraying all the situations that Trump Almighty is fixing, it it sure didn’t come across like that to me. The original show always portrayed the Conners as a perpetually struggling, lower middle class couple who didn't have the education or resources to escape the situation they were in. Darlene made it out of Lanford originally and the fact that she was back, children in tow, living with her parents was not exactly evidence of a greater America. And Becky (and Crystal) still working in a bar after all these years, also not great. The fact that the Conners (or at least Roseanne) were still supporting Trump despite their ongoing poor situation, including lack of medical coverage, seemed painfully realistic, but it's not actually pro-Trump in real world logic. |
|
|
|
Post by Mutagen on May 31, 2018 10:55:05 GMT -4
In addition to Big Pharma, we can now add Tom Arnold to the "unlikely voice of reason" list: I mean, thank you. She was a well known racist conspiracy nut for YEARS before this revival was a gleam in anyone's eye. ABC deserves to pay every penny for greenlighting this. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 28, 2024 2:30:17 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2018 11:36:18 GMT -4
When Tom Arnold is the one speaking truth to power ... what a crazy day and age.
|
|
