Roseanne/The Conners

Discuss TV shows old and new.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Luke M
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm

Re: Roseanne

#101 Post by Luke M » Thu May 31, 2018 12:27 am

connor wrote:
aox wrote:
Wed May 30, 2018 4:23 pm
From the NYTimes:
The real story here is not that Roseanne got fired because she tweeted some stupid, racially charged, garbage (she would not have been the only one to tweet that sort of stuff and keep her job) nor that ABC “did the right thing”. The real story is that ABC/Disney successfully tapped the African American market ($1.3B revenue for Black Panther, and spin offs coming fast) and they don’t want to lose it. This was a cold, hard, business decision based on the potential revenue impact prior to the block buster season. The last thing ABC/Disney wanted was to face a politically / racially motivated boycott that would have had impact all year long and might have impacted their just found African American fan base. Very smart. They cut off the problem at the knees, shutting down any potential ramifications that might have impacted reputation or revenue; leaving Roseanne holding the bag. Make no mistake, this wasn’t about doing the right thing, this was about money. Wherever the African American community can focus their purchasing power, and threaten to leave when necessary, they can exert real influence.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/opin ... ght-region
The fact that Roxane Gay thinks this happened because of Black Panther's success is...curious.
Arguing that ABC is woke now while they refused to air an episode of Blackish about kneeling football players is extremely curious.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Roseanne

#102 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu May 31, 2018 1:31 am

Roxane Gay has never been the most accurate writer. And she's one of the originators of this hocus pocus "black bodies" stuff that always undermines any argument being made by dehumanizing the very people the author is attempting to defend.

connor
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:03 pm

Re: Roseanne

#103 Post by connor » Thu May 31, 2018 11:33 am

mfunk9786 wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 1:31 am
Roxane Gay has never been the most accurate writer. And she's one of the originators of this hocus pocus "black bodies" stuff that always undermines any argument being made by dehumanizing the very people the author is attempting to defend.
I particularly enjoyed when Gay tweeted about how she rebuked a McDonald's employee for asking her if she wanted the Happy Meal with the girl's toy or the boy's toy.

A Phillips Exeter graduate who attended Yale University putting a minimum wage worker in his or her place. But oh, she did it while using the phrase "gender binary" so it's actually Progressive and Radical.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Roseanne

#104 Post by knives » Thu May 31, 2018 3:13 pm

Socially progressive doesn't necessarily mean left. It just means pro-change.(just to be clear because of tone and the internet, that was written with absolute disdain toward Gay and her ilk.

User avatar
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Roseanne

#105 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Thu May 31, 2018 3:31 pm

Samantha Bee is getting backlash for using the C-word against Ivanka, with the right using the Roseanne mess as ammunition. It's a sad state of affairs when name-calling gets this level of attention, one way or the other.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Roseanne

#106 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu May 31, 2018 3:33 pm

She's already apologized like a complete coward, so it's pretty much a non-story at this point from the perspective of any actual risk of cancellation. One thing we can all be certain about (except for Samantha Bee, apparently) is that Ivanka Trump is a cunt.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Roseanne

#107 Post by domino harvey » Thu May 31, 2018 3:35 pm

Huckabee's statement about it sure seems to sound like a call for actual, state-driven censorship:
Her disgusting comments and show are not fit for broadcast, and executives at Time Warner and TBS must demonstrate that such explicit profanity about female members of this administration will not be condoned on its network.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Roseanne

#108 Post by knives » Thu May 31, 2018 3:46 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 3:33 pm
She's already apologized like a complete coward, so it's pretty much a non-story at this point from the perspective of any actual risk of cancellation. One thing we can all be certain about (except for Samantha Bee, apparently) is that Ivanka Trump is a cunt.
I'm not a fan of Trump, but imagine someone saying that about Kamal Harris, for example. Saying cunt is no where near as bad as what Roseanne did, but so what? Maybe these late night comedians should look at how they critique these public figures and if they would hold others accountable for it. (though I must admit part of my problem is Bee being the one doing this as she especially doesn't seem to be making jokes so much as repeating liberal Twitter comments)

User avatar
Brian C
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Roseanne

#109 Post by Brian C » Thu May 31, 2018 3:49 pm

The non-stop air of aggrievedness from this administration is disturbing, not to mention gratingly annoying. But still, I see no more merit in Bee’s comment than Roseanne’s.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Roseanne

#110 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu May 31, 2018 3:52 pm

I'd argue that someone in Bee's position should be more at risk of firing for apologizing for remarks like that than for making them in the first place. It's her job to speak truth to power, not kowtow to it the moment her job seems like it might be on shaky ground. I don't like Bee very much, but if you're a television network that hires her to be "unleashed" and "outrageous" about the current political climate, you should expect that to be how she performs her job. And the moment someone reveals how easy it is for them to pretend that what they just said had no conviction behind it, they've outlived their usefulness for that kind of job.

Her point about Ivanka Trump being feckless is a correct one if sort of naïve (the whole "do something about your father!!" thing is indicative of all the other ways that liberals keep expecting a superhero to emerge to take them away from Donald Trump forever - just look at the way folks like Comey and Mueller and every Republican who ever whispers something slightly negative about Trump are fawned over by the blue wave/resistance crowd), but there is absolutely no authenticity to it if it's backed away from entirely the moment it cuts too deep.

Here's a good piece that just emerged from Splinter on this very topic.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Roseanne

#111 Post by knives » Thu May 31, 2018 4:03 pm

I'm pretty sure they hired her to make jokes in the format of a liberal talk show since that is cheap to make and easy to sell to millenials. I highly doubt that her bosses look at her as some sort of political Howard Beale thing. It's sort of like how Noah pretends to be part of the African American culture when before getting the Daily Show a lot of his jokes were about how Africans are a whole different culture. It's silly to think that these people are selling their authentic selves.

User avatar
Brian C
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:58 am
Location: Chicago, IL

Re: Roseanne

#112 Post by Brian C » Thu May 31, 2018 4:05 pm

Samantha Bee should be apologizing to progressives.

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Roseanne

#113 Post by Big Ben » Thu May 31, 2018 4:08 pm

Sanders says a lot of things and it amounts to nothing because it's all talk. It's a violation of the first amendment to demand they censor things. It's entirely a statement for the Trump base to have a hard on over. I mean this is coming from a family that hid that one of them tortured and killed a dog. You can tweet cartoons at her account of her brother chasing after a dog with a club. It's all legal (Although Twitter might not like it.).

However it's entirely possible for TBS to remove her as they don't want the controversy. Speaking for myself only I really don't care what happens to her. Next week we'll have another controversy on our hands and it will all be meaningless.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Roseanne

#114 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu May 31, 2018 4:09 pm

knives wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 4:03 pm
I'm pretty sure they hired her to make jokes in the format of a liberal talk show since that is cheap to make and easy to sell to millenials. I highly doubt that her bosses look at her as some sort of political Howard Beale thing. It's sort of like how Noah pretends to be part of the African American culture when before getting the Daily Show a lot of his jokes were about how Africans are a whole different culture. It's silly to think that these people are selling their authentic selves.
That we can certainly agree on. Someone might want to tell the marketing people at TBS, though.

knives wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 4:03 pm
It's silly to think that these people are selling their authentic selves.
Brian C wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 4:05 pm
Samantha Bee should be apologizing to progressives.
Yes indeed.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Roseanne

#115 Post by knives » Thu May 31, 2018 4:12 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 4:09 pm
knives wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 4:03 pm
I'm pretty sure they hired her to make jokes in the format of a liberal talk show since that is cheap to make and easy to sell to millenials. I highly doubt that her bosses look at her as some sort of political Howard Beale thing. It's sort of like how Noah pretends to be part of the African American culture when before getting the Daily Show a lot of his jokes were about how Africans are a whole different culture. It's silly to think that these people are selling their authentic selves.
That we can certainly agree on. Someone might want to tell the marketing people at TBS, though.
Pretty sure that is called good marketing.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Roseanne

#116 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu May 31, 2018 4:17 pm

I doubt that millennials watch stuff like Samantha Bee's show much, would love to see the figures on that. Guessing the median viewer is quite a bit older.

There's a tweet I can't find at the moment that went something like "I thought shows like Bill Maher's were just engineered so retired liberals can hear someone call George W. Bush the "commander-in-chimp" while they doze off." That seems to fit Bee's formula, too.

connor
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:03 pm

Re: Roseanne

#117 Post by connor » Thu May 31, 2018 4:18 pm

knives wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 3:13 pm
Socially progressive doesn't necessarily mean left. It just means pro-change.(just to be clear because of tone and the internet, that was written with absolute disdain toward Gay and her ilk.
Ha, though I take your point, I don't even think it's that. In this case, like most wokeness from the professional class, it's simply an update of Victorian manners--the professional class must act as "a gentleman" or "a lady" to prove that they are worthy of their lofty status over the lower orders, who are "brutes."

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Roseanne

#118 Post by Big Ben » Thu May 31, 2018 4:23 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 4:17 pm
I doubt that millennials watch stuff like Samantha Bee's show much, would love to see the figures on that. Guessing the median viewer is quite a bit older.

There's a tweet I can't find at the moment that went something like "I thought shows like Bill Maher's were just engineered so retired liberals can hear someone call George W. Bush the "commander-in-chimp" while they doze off." That seems to fit Bee's formula, too.
Your assessment is about right I wager. It's just a show where a certain group can feel validated because someone writes some quips at establishment. Bee has always attempted to be transgressive (I remember her from The Daily Show) but she always struck me as trying way too hard to do so. There's a difference between making barbs at societal institutions and actually doing something.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Roseanne

#119 Post by knives » Thu May 31, 2018 4:27 pm

connor wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 4:18 pm
knives wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 3:13 pm
Socially progressive doesn't necessarily mean left. It just means pro-change.(just to be clear because of tone and the internet, that was written with absolute disdain toward Gay and her ilk.
Ha, though I take your point, I don't even think it's that. In this case, like most wokeness from the professional class, it's simply an update of Victorian manners--the professional class must act as "a gentleman" or "a lady" to prove that they are worthy of their lofty status over the lower orders, who are "brutes."
Totes, which reminds me of that stupid moment from Trudeau a while ago. It's just part of the shift of the upper class from being Repub to Dem neither of which are really left leaning entities (a lot of the problems Dems do have with Sanders such as his pro-gun stance is fascinatingly reflective of this shift).
mfunk9786 wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 4:17 pm
I doubt that millennials watch stuff like Samantha Bee's show much, would love to see the figures on that. Guessing the median viewer is quite a bit older.

There's a tweet I can't find at the moment that went something like "I thought shows like Bill Maher's were just engineered so retired liberals can hear someone call George W. Bush the "commander-in-chimp" while they doze off." That seems to fit Bee's formula, too.
That seems about right as a descriptor. As for millennials, just because you want a demo doesn't mean they show up (though supposedly her, Colbert and the rest get younger ratings than more apolitical hosts like Fallon).

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Roseanne

#120 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu May 31, 2018 4:30 pm

I'll be interested to see how something like Michelle Wolf's show does with those millennials TBS had been courting considering all the backlash (that she didn't back down from) following the White House Correspondents' Dinner. The sort of people who actually watch that thing were pearl-clutching over it, but younger people seeing it after the fact all seemed pretty glad it happened. If her show follows in the same mold without fear of the target that is surely on her back, maybe it'll manage to break the format out of the doldrums. That said, there's no way I'm watching a half hour political comedy show in 2018. But I wish her the best.

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Roseanne

#121 Post by knives » Thu May 31, 2018 4:34 pm

I didn't even know she had one coming, but likewise I won't be watching just because there are too many on air right now. I'll probably just stick with Klepper and Oliver (who admittedly isn't that funny on the show and is also preaching to the choir, but at least he talks about different subjects each week).

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Roseanne

#122 Post by domino harvey » Thu May 31, 2018 7:23 pm

The best part of this whole kerfuffle was Sally Field tweeting about it and using the word "cunt" repeatedly

User avatar
furbicide
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2011 4:52 am

Re: Roseanne

#123 Post by furbicide » Thu May 31, 2018 7:37 pm

I never fail to be astounded by the way the word 'cunt' is used in the US (effectively like the n-word for women, which is weird). It always seems like it's used solely for shock value. Give me the much more creative, effectively non-gendered, much less taboo Australian/UK deployments any day!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRhBRg-XkWY

Werewolf by Night

Roseanne

#124 Post by Werewolf by Night » Thu May 31, 2018 7:50 pm

furbicide wrote:I never fail to be astounded by the way the word 'cunt' is used in the US (effectively like the n-word for women, which is weird).
That’s exactly right. Funny thing is, I’m having a hard time thinking of any word one might use toward a straight white male that would be as taboo and generally offensive as those used toward women, black people, or gay men or used toward straight white men in a way that doesn’t mean to insult them by questioning their masculinity or heterosexuality. Like, is “dick” or “prick” or “asshole” seriously the worst pejorative one can use for a straight white man? “Cracker?” I mean, come on.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Roseanne

#125 Post by hearthesilence » Thu May 31, 2018 8:11 pm

Werewolf by Night wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 7:50 pm
“Cracker?” I mean, come on.
Hey that's a Louis C K bit: "I'm a man, a white man. You can't even hurt my feelings. What's the worst thing you can call me, a cracker? Arrghh, ruined my day! Bringing me back to a time when I owned land and people."

Post Reply