|
|
Post by Ginger on Apr 5, 2018 14:47:23 GMT -4
I know it might sound stupid or crazy or both, but does anyone else think this revival is having a real world impact on how people relate to cheetoh's presidency? Yeah, I know, it's just a sitcom, but it's one of the most popular shows in the country. People talk about how and why representation is important for gays, minorities, women, etc, so why wouldn't that apply to political ideologies? So far it's been on the air for 9 days, so there's no way it has influenced any existing polls. What the show has portrayed so far: -Roseanne is a fictional Midwestern woman who supports Trump -Roseanne has family members that vehemently disagree with her, which has led to family division -Roseanne does not support Obamacare, even though she needs it to treat her crippling knee injury -Roseanne rejects as "fake news" the idea that she is worse off economically since Trump took over, because she's not -Roseanne thought that Hillary is a "liar liar pants on fire" -The Conners have mixed feelings about their grandson's gender identity, but love and support him anyway That's pretty bang-up accurate in terms of representing what is going on in the country right now. Roseanne the character represents how 50% of the country already thinks. I don't think any good will come from trying to pretend that these viewpoints don't exist or aren't allowed. |
|
|
|
Post by deeconsistent on Apr 5, 2018 16:57:11 GMT -4
So far it's been on the air for 9 days, so there's no way it has influenced any existing polls. What the show has portrayed so far: -Roseanne is a fictional Midwestern woman who supports Trump -Roseanne has family members that vehemently disagree with her, which has led to family division -Roseanne does not support Obamacare, even though she needs it to treat her crippling knee injury -Roseanne rejects as "fake news" the idea that she is worse off economically since Trump took over, because she's not -Roseanne thought that Hillary is a "liar liar pants on fire" -The Conners have mixed feelings about their grandson's gender identity, but love and support him anyway That's pretty bang-up accurate in terms of representing what is going on in the country right now. Roseanne the character represents how 50% of the country already thinks. I don't think any good will come from trying to pretend that these viewpoints don't exist or aren't allowed. The Rasmussen poll I referred to is a rolling 3-day daily poll, but I wasn't saying that I thought the show premiered and magically transformed half the country. This thread was started more than a week before the premiere and every page before the premiere has several posters discussing the Conners' tr*mp support being realistic,being fans of the original run and debating whether or not they'd be willing to support the revival. My last post in this thread was in regards to me watching the first new eps, essentially saying all of those things, and I didn't just start that internal debate the day the show debuted. The conversation has been going on for weeks. This show is the first real tr*mp-supporting media-property-thingie where people more aligned with the left haven't just said "I'm done" en masse and have said "I'll give it a shot". The bulletpoints you listed to describe what's been portrayed on the show are, for the most part, rational and reasonable. That is exactly what gives me pause. I don't agree that those are the things that 50% of the country were responding to. IMO, it was pretty clear that there were a LOT of tr*mp supporters who were responding to a dog-whistle campaign in regards to very ugly ideas about race, sex and government policies. Even after being elected, he constantly comes as close as he possibly can to saying "Hey, I'm really just an alt-right conspiracy theorist, but I can't just come out and say it, so let me talk about some made up crimes in Sweden. I'm sure you can read between the lines". Roseanne IRL has been a hateful, conspiracy-theorist nut on social media, falling in line with a big part- or at least a vocal part- of tr*mp's constituency. So, when you say "the show has only shown these misguided but not really that unreasonable reasons to support tr*mp," that's what glaringly jumps out at me as normalization. Furthermore, a big part of my original point was that we're not talking about a set number, we're talking about a number that is shifting. I suspect that the reason it's shifting is because people are becoming a lot more comfortable overlooking the hateful, radical elements of a tr*mp presidency. I don't think that's good or accurate because I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest that those "fringe" elements are as important to this administration's story as "regular" voters like the Conners. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexis Machine on Apr 5, 2018 19:29:38 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Apr 5, 2018 20:36:07 GMT -4
I think what it boils down to for me is that I am watching it as a sitcom, not a political show. It doesn't exist to provide a comprehensive political debate, and if it tried, I would certainly stop watching. (My viewership is very much dependent upon the political stuff staying incidental to the story and not getting into any of the wacky or offensive stuff espoused by the real Roseanne.) I do believe that there is a large segment of the country who are support Trump for the same reasons the Conners do - and not the reasons the real Roseanne does. I can't say that all of those Conner reasons are misguided or should be treated as socially unacceptable. I think denying that those people exist and the implication/accusation that they are all undercover racists or morons is why Trump won in 2016 and why he could win again in 2020. That is awesome! I had to Google this Inaki Lizzaralde because a guy who would spend all of that time creating sitcom floor plans is possibly my soulmate. He has an interesting story. He started creating the floor plans when he was unemployed, and now makes his living selling them on Etsy and can't keep up with the orders. When I got to the paragraph about his childhood love of the luxurious homes of Angela Channing and Alexis Carrington, I realized my soulmate is probably gay. |
|
|
|
Post by riosamba on Apr 6, 2018 9:47:44 GMT -4
IMO, it was pretty clear that there were a LOT of tr*mp supporters who were responding to a dog-whistle campaign in regards to very ugly ideas about race, sex and government policies. Even after being elected, he constantly comes as close as he possibly can to saying "Hey, I'm really just an alt-right conspiracy theorist, but I can't just come out and say it, so let me talk about some made up crimes in Sweden. I'm sure you can read between the lines". Roseanne IRL has been a hateful, conspiracy-theorist nut on social media, falling in line with a big part- or at least a vocal part- of tr*mp's constituency. So, when you say "the show has only shown these misguided but not really that unreasonable reasons to support tr*mp," that's what glaringly jumps out at me as normalization. Furthermore, a big part of my original point was that we're not talking about a set number, we're talking about a number that is shifting. I suspect that the reason it's shifting is because people are becoming a lot more comfortable overlooking the hateful, radical elements of a tr*mp presidency. I don't think that's good or accurate because I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest that those "fringe" elements are as important to this administration's story as "regular" voters like the Conners. This is why I don’t want to watch. |
|
|
|
Post by GirlyGhoul on Apr 6, 2018 11:05:54 GMT -4
I hate hate HATE that the orange thing has counted Roseanne's ratings as a victory for himself. And that the FauxNews crews have also touted the show's (so far) success as "refreshing" and an in your face to all the "liberal" junk shows out there. (I briefly saw one FauxNews guy crow that Roseanne had higher ratings than Stormy Daniels' interview as if that meant anything, and then promptly clicked him off my screen)
I watched the first two episodes on Hulu out of curiosity and nostalgia. I think that's why a good many folks tuned in. I liked the Roseanne show back in the day and wanted to know how the family had turned out and what they were up to these days. I didn't like the portrayal of Jackie as neurotic and unhinged because she was a Hilary(really Jill Stein) supporter. Jackie was always fairly unhinged, but they always portrayed it as her insecurities and leftover issues with her overbearing mother and older sister, plus unresolved Daddy issues. Not that she was on the wrong side politically and therefore worthy of mocking.
I did like the new crop of kids. Darlene Jr. is exactly how I would expect her offspring to be. And I love that the boy (Mark? named after dead Uncle Mark?) is already very self assured in his identity even if it gives his grandparents and class mates pause. D.J.'s little girl only had one line... but dang if it wasn't the one line in the show that gave me the biggest laugh.
Becky continues to be awful- but I agree with her that if she wants to be a surrogate, it's her body and her choice and her parents need to butt the hell out. Really the only issue is that she's lying to the mother (Other Becky- hee!) about her age and yeah there may be complications because of that.
But I only watched the first two episode which aired back to back. I actually forgot there would have been another one the week after. The aftermath of this little reboot sitcom being a tr*mp triumph and Roseanne the person herself's attitude and creepy tweets after really left a bad taste in my mouth. It might be the bestest show I'm not seeing, but it really does dampen my curiosity and nostalgia.
Heck, I have Reboot Will & Grace to satisfy my nostalgia needs and that show doesn't make me feel icky afterwards (Even when they dish out a boring episode here and there)
|
|
eveschmeve
Sloane Ranger
Posts: 2,330
Mar 7, 2005 15:24:15 GMT -4
|
Post by eveschmeve on Apr 7, 2018 12:51:40 GMT -4
I think people are mixing some things up.
1. Roseanne the character has never been socially conservative. Ever. If anything, Dan is way more socially conservative, but you don’t see people throwing John Goodman under the bus.
2. Roseanne and Dan ARE fiscally conservative, and that’s still true.
Roseanne has never been a racist or homophobic show. I don’t think watching Roseanne normalizes being racist or homophobic. I also don’t think believing in lower taxes or being against Obamacare should be placed on the same level as those things. (For the record, I’m as liberal as they come, not speaking as a closet Trump supporter.)
If racist homophobic Trump supporters watch Roseanne, they may be pissed when she shows love and acceptance of her gender nonconforming grandson, or hugs her black granddaughter. The show has never been a comfortable place for social conservatives, and from what I’ve seen that hasn’t changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by deeconsistent on Apr 10, 2018 14:36:11 GMT -4
I think people are mixing some things up. I'm assuming that some of this is in reference to my earlier posts, and if that's the case, then another possibility is that you're misinterpreting what some other people are saying. I thought I was clear in my last posts that I wasn't conflating racism, sexism, homophobia et al. with wanting lower taxes or being against Obamacare. What I specifically said is that filtering out the unsavory bits and overlooking them is where I see an issue. It's like if there was a big box store in the middle of a town. They sell racist merchandise, they have a big problem with sexually harrassing employees, yada yada yada. But they also have low prices. At first, only the racists and whoevers shop there and they passionately support it. It's known as the racist,sexist, homophobic store. Then other people who don't think it would be so bad being known as racists and homophobes start shopping there because they like the prices. But it's still mostly known as the racist, sexist, homophobic store that has some decent prices. But then your neighbor or your favorite sitcom star starts shopping there. You know they're not racist. They only go there for the prices. They probably don't even go in the aisles with the wildly popular racist merchandise. And it's not like they can actually do anything about the sexual harassment. Besides,you don't like everything about the store you regularly go to. To me, that is the normalization. Not the flat-out conversion of everyone into a neo-nazi, but the increasing comfort in lowering those standards. The increasing comfort in compartmentalizing what was, until recently, considered abhorrent behaviour. I'm not saying that different viewpoints aren't allowed. Even if I did say that, I don't have the power to make that happen. What I was saying is maybe this is just another factor in how clown president becomes business as usual. I also think it's undeniable that the show has always been pretty political. You don't have to watch the show as a political show, but it has always been pretty aggressive in dealing with social issues and making a statement about controversial subjects. |
|
|
|
Post by GirlyGhoul on Apr 10, 2018 16:32:45 GMT -4
For me, it's sort of a Chick-Fil-A dilemma. Chick-Fil-A makes YUMMY food, and it was a rare treat when I was a kid, so there's nostalgia there too. But then when the news came out that the CEO had been sending money to support anti-gay causes (not just anti-marriage causes, but the kind of groups that lobby for being gay to be a capitol offense. These groups made that happen in Uganda and other places), it really made me feel not so great about chowing down at Chick-Fil-A. It wasn't the employees fault. Those folks are great and always smile and offer you free refills. It wasn't the individual franchise owner's fault- they're just trying to sell some waffle fries and pickle flavored chicken. And the food itself is still super YUMMY. But when I walk by in a food court and smell those scrumptious waffle fries and delicious chicken- all the nostalgia and previous good feelings are tainted by knowing that the head honcho was supporting and contributing to some seriously horrendous practices. So I don't like to eat there anymore. I won't lie, sometimes nostalgia and hunger have over ridden my conscience... but then I feel gross and ashamed afterwards and for more than just the usually reasons for feeling loathesome after a fast food splurge.
I loved the Roseanne show back in the day, so there's the nostalgia. Plus, the first two episodes I saw, the quality of the writing and acting is still solid (some actors on the show are better than others...) John Goodman is awesome, Laurie Metcalf is awesome. Sara Gilbert is awesome. And the new kid actors seem to have a lot of potential. But Roseanne herself is out hitting the talk show circuits praising the Dumpster like they're just bestest buds. She's getting in as many Pro-Dump barbs as she can in the sitcom. And she's spreading conspiracy tweets that are just generally contributing the awfulness and division in this country. It's not the show's fault. Or the other writers fault. Or the other actors fault. But the idea of watching and contributing to the ratings gives me that same Chick-Fil-A aftertaste of regret and shame.
(P.S. I'm not saying anyone else who watches or enjoys the show should feel the same way. This is just how it's all sat with me so far)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 28, 2024 3:59:36 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2018 21:47:20 GMT -4
What happened to Jackie's son, Andy?
|
|
