and who is even going to watch this? - The Conners (2018) Discussion

[–] Saenzwa9 (442) 6 years ago

I'm not. I don't care what Rosanne said. Her show was good and had good ratings

I really don't care to watch this without her

reply

[–] exatera (3943) 6 years ago

I do think there should have been repercussions for her, but this... this is just a desperate attempt to salvage the rest of the actors' careers.

reply

[–] FifthFreedom (196) 6 years ago

Repercussions for a comedian making a joke on Twitter? 🤔

reply

[–] exatera (3943) 6 years ago

That was some unparalleled stupidity on her part, and you know it.

No one in the public eye should be able to say something like that with impunity.

There should be consequences, it would have been extremely alarming if there weren't.

reply

[–] FifthFreedom (196) 6 years ago

I find is extremely alarming that you think that way.

reply

[–] exatera (3943) 6 years ago

What if it was something anti-Semitic instead? Would you have felt the same way?

I mean, I know Roseanne is Jewish, so my question is rather, if someone in the public eye made an obviously anti-Semitic joke, would that have been okay?

I can't look at "Kramer" in Seinfeld the same way either after that rant, it was absolutely unforgivable.

reply

[–] FifthFreedom (196) 6 years ago

1. Her joke wasn't even racist.
2. Yes, I would still feel the same way.

I look at Kramer exactly the same way now that I did 20 years ago.

reply

[–] exatera (3943) 6 years ago

Well, then something is wrong with you, not the world.

reply

[–] FifthFreedom (196) 6 years ago

Everybody is racist. Every living human being on Earth. The only difference is the degree to which we hide it.

reply

[–] TiaTamaragohomee (91) 6 years ago

exactly

reply

[–] howgamer (3652) 6 years ago

I'll watch the first episode and see how it is, but I am going in with some pretty low expectations.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Naw. Not interested in playing along with the Salem Cult...

reply

[–] thewaitress (1616) 6 years ago

I was thinking similar things. I didn't even know it was a thing until I saw this on trending. The old Roseanne show was awesome but they never should have attempted to bring it back and certainly not this garbage. Poor John Goodman.

reply

[–] Martoto (4256) 6 years ago

It's too bad Roseanne thought she could try to play the racist bigot card and then make a pathetic attempt to disown it.

What makes you think it can't be a success? We don't even know what it'll be like.

reply

[–] exatera (3943) 6 years ago

Even the Roseanne reboot itself seemed desperate to me (although I was never a fan of the original), but this is just off the charts desperate.

I am of the opinion that nothing with canned laughter can succeed on television these days anyway, but it also seems to me that fans of the original show won't watch it without the main character.

reply

[–] Martoto (4256) 6 years ago

There have been numerous spin offs without the main character before. Some successful. Some not.

It's hardly off the charts.

reply

[–] exatera (3943) 6 years ago

To bring back a show from the 90's in the first place is like a statement that everyone involved is artistically bankrupt. To bring a show back after the main character's unparalleled stupidity is just... pathetic.

That's aside from the fact that it's an unfunny show with canned laughter.

reply

[–] Martoto (4256) 6 years ago

So it's less artistically bankrupt if they go a different way, without the title character? Or just more stupid?

Where do I get a reference for these definitions of artistic bankruptcy?

It's funny how often people who are able to so easily presume the lack of artistic integrity of revivals, particularly of shows they never liked in the first place, don't seem to have enough integrity to avoid being the most pro-actively interested in commentating on them, and just ignore them instead.

Everybody has opinions to which they are entitled. I dislike a lot of things. It behooves me to concentrate on things I already know have worth and not waste my breath on things I will never enhance by passing remarks about them.

reply

[–] exatera (3943) 6 years ago

I posted the first thought that came to mind when I heard about this show (that's what this message board is for), didn't realize it would grow into this whole topic, but no, I don't actually care.

Why are you advocating for this show with such zeal, though - is this really the level of TV programming you are most interested in?

reply

[–] Martoto (4256) 6 years ago

This train is never late.

Challenge someone else's arguments and you are presumed to be zealously advocating it.

Provide a quote where I "advocate" anything.

Advocate means to support and/or suggest an idea. I just happen to think your arguments, (off the chart, bankruptcy, stupidity etc) don't really hold much weight. We shall see.

reply

[–] exatera (3943) 6 years ago

And canned laughter? Are you going to claim that that argument doesn't hold any weight in today's TV climate either?

Here is what I really can't imagine wasting my time doing: disputing the validity of anyone's criticism when I personally couldn't care less about the show.

reply

[–] Martoto (4256) 6 years ago

Canned laughter never made a comedy more or less funny than it already was. I don't see why I should start to care about it or factor it into my appreciation of a show now.

Well your imagination certainly needs to catch up with your reality because you started a thread which was bound to attract opinions about the prospects of a show. Something that you really should have anticipated, before during and after posting it.

reply

[–] exatera (3943) 6 years ago

Not sure what your point has to do with mine. I said I can't imagine defending the merits of something I have zero emotional investment in, as you seem to be doing.

Anyway, I am bored, you are awfully pedantic, so, buh-bye.

reply

[–] Martoto (4256) 6 years ago

No you said "disputing the validity of anyone's criticism when I personally couldn't care less about the show." And I never said I couldn't care less about the show.

Starting a thread about a show I claim not to care about would be quite easy to avoid. I imagine. The problem never came up as something I need to negotiate.

reply

[–] exatera (3943) 6 years ago

You denied that you were defending the show, which indicates that you are not a fan. If you are not a fan, what do you care about anybody's criticism, and whether it meets your standards of what constitutes a valid critique?

Anyway, I thought I couldn't be any more bored, but this is so horrible, it's like the life force is being sucked out of me by someone with nothing better to do but cavil.

You must be a delightful person out there in the real world.

reply

[–] Martoto (4256) 6 years ago

I denied that I was advocating the show. there's a difference.

I challenged your presumption that nobody should be interested in it.

Neither of us have critiqued it. That would involve talking about the merits or otherwise of the actual show itself.

Actually. In the real world I can just look at people that volunteer stuff like "I don't see the point of this show/film..." right in the eye and then they usually put their shit into perspective e.g. "I suppose other people might see the point and might like it though..." and we move on without too much hassle.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

I imagine the premier episode will do huge numbers out of curiosity if nothing else, but beyond that I'm doubtful the show will last. I only watched the premier episode of the reboot last year and wasn't overly impressed, but then again I didn't really watch much of the original series after the fourth season either.

reply

[–] exatera (3943) 6 years ago

I didn't think the Roseanne premiere was funny, don't see how this one can be, but to each their own.

reply

[–] exatera (3943) 6 years ago

I did end up watching the premiere, I didn't realize it was going to be on right after Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune.

I thought it was painfully unfunny.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

I'm actually sorry to hear tha because even though the show isn't my cup of tea I kind of like the cast. Oh well, it'll be interesting to see how the ratings are as the season goes on.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

I agree. It was strained laughter at best. It was also tough watching Goodman on TV looking like a deflated balloon.

reply

[–] Satan2016 (23504) 6 years ago

Not me. I watched the reboot of Last Man Standing, far better than the final season of Roseanne. This South Park season has been good too.

reply

[–] Washingtonnative (2613) 6 years ago

Gee, a lot of hate for it so far and the premiere hasn't happened yet!

reply

[–] exatera (3943) 6 years ago

It has happened now, and it was really bad.

I fully anticipated this, though.

reply

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 6 years ago

I plan on it tonight. I have nothing better to do. If it's not any better than the reboot last season, I no longer have to watch it.
Thing is, I have always enjoyed the rest of the cast, so I'm in until I'm out.

reply

[–] PF4Eva (289) 6 years ago

I'm in. The original Roseanne was always The John Goodman Show anyway.

Murphy Brown is way better than last year's Roseanne reboot. THAT'S how you do a political sitcom on either side of the aisle.

reply