Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mot Morenzi

"Roseanne" - 2018 Revival on ABC

Recommended Posts

Neil    1,278

I wonder if Lucie and Desi have ever thought about rebooting their show as "Here's Lucie" portraying Kim and Craig later in life.  With Mr. Luckinbill as "Uncle Larry".  I'm sure Milt Josefsburg, Jr. kept his father's joke file; and Little Hilda kept her mother's "idea" file.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mot Morenzi    1,405
Neil, on 19 May 2017 - 02:08 AM, said:

I wonder if Lucie and Desi have ever thought about rebooting their show as "Here's Lucie" portraying Kim and Craig later in life.  With Mr. Luckinbill as "Uncle Larry".  I'm sure Milt Josefsburg, Jr. kept his father's joke file; and Little Hilda kept her mother's "idea" file.

 

:marionstrong:  That is brilliant.

 

Well, if any Lucy sitcom were to have a comeback season in this day and age of reviving old shows, it'd have to be Here's Lucy. Seeing what Kim and Craig are up to nowadays might be fun, as long as Susan Tolsky is on board as Kim's spinster roommate. Recurring roles for Keith Thibodeaux, Jimmy Garrett and Candy Moore would also be most welcome, plus a cameo from Ralph Hart, assuming he could be wooed back into show business after all these years.

 

Although the previously suggested concept Life Without Lucy could theoretically exist, that'd be a pretty dour affair, what with the McGibbon family dealing not only with the death of Lucy and Curtis, but also one of their children (Philip J. Amelio died at a shockingly young age some years back from health problems). And with all due respect to Ann Dusenberry and Larry Anderson as actors, their characters could hardly be the centre of a show, considering how weak they were in a supporting function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoeySoCal    999

:marionstrong:  That is brilliant.

 

Well, if any Lucy sitcom were to have a comeback season in this day and age of reviving old shows, it'd have to be Here's Lucy. Seeing what Kim and Craig are up to nowadays might be fun, as long as Susan Tolsky is on board as Kim's spinster roommate. Recurring roles for Keith Thibodeaux, Jimmy Garrett and Candy Moore would also be most welcome, plus a cameo from Ralph Hart, assuming he could be wooed back into show business after all these years.

 

Although the previously suggested concept Life Without Lucy could theoretically exist, that'd be a pretty dour affair, what with the McGibbon family dealing not only with the death of Lucy and Curtis, but also one of their children (Philip J. Amelio died at a shockingly young age some years back from health problems). And with all due respect to Ann Dusenberry and Larry Anderson as actors, their characters could hardly be the centre of a show, considering how weak they were in a supporting function.

 

Good lord wasn't Life With Lucy a bad enough idea, let's not encourage this!! Oy! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mot Morenzi    1,405

I've not seen much of the original Roseanne but I've enjoyed the new episodes. Despite the current plot threads, it has more of an old-school feel to it than the new Will & Grace. It's nice to see the set still looks lived in, and that they're using the old bright lighting style instead of the warm, soft light most multi-cams have today.

Great casting for Sara Gilbert's daughter - quite a resemblance. And I'm glad they found room for Sarah Chalke.

I can't help but notice that Roseanne's delivery feels more stilted than it used to. Her comedic timing is still good, but it's not quite the same. I loved the way they handled Goodman's character still being alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Freddie2    795

I've really been enjoying the new episodes, and if the ratings are any indication, so is the rest of the country. It's been years since I regularly tuned into a primetime network show. It's nothing revolutionary, but it makes me laugh. I totally agree on the casting of the granddaughter. You hardly notice that the show is filmed with new cameras and a new aspect ratio, proving my theory that using traditional blocking and lighting is really key for making a multi-camera show enjoyable. My only genuine qualm has been the underutilization of Goodman and Metcalf, but I wouldn't be surprised if they got more time in future episodes. 

WARNING: If you don't want to learn a key spoiler for a future episode, DO NOT watch the recent Theatre Talk episode with Estelle Parsons and Patricia Bosworth!

28 minutes ago, Mot Morenzi said:

I've not seen much of the original Roseanne but I've enjoyed the new episodes. Despite the current plot threads, it has more of an old-school feel to it than the new Will & Grace. It's nice to see the set still looks lived in, and that they're using the old bright lighting style instead of the warm, soft light most multi-cams have today.

Great casting for Sara Gilbert's daughter - quite a resemblance. And I'm glad they found room for Sarah Chalke.

I can't help but notice that Roseanne's delivery feels more stilted than it used to. Her comedic timing is still good, but it's not quite the same. I loved the way they handled Goodman's character still being alive.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rickylu    38

I agree that Roseanne's line delivery is, at times, more restrained. She's still sarcastic and snarky, but more subdued, if that makes sense. To me, it seems like in the last episode or two the show is finding it's footing again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mot Morenzi    1,405
10 hours ago, rickylu said:

I agree that Roseanne's line delivery is, at times, more restrained. She's still sarcastic and snarky, but more subdued, if that makes sense. To me, it seems like in the last episode or two the show is finding it's footing again.

Yes, that's exactly it. It makes sense for the character to have evolved over time. She wouldn't be exactly the same person she was in the 90s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Freddie2    795

Roseanne now joins Lucy, Andy Griffith and Seinfeld- all eponymous cultural landmarks, all ended while being the #1 show on TV.

Was not at all surprised by the cancellation, that tweet was BAD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Luvsbway    1,940

I've been out of the loop on the world as I've been on vacation but vaguely heard something this morning about a nasty tweet.

Well I'm looking at my inbox of work email and ABC sends down the short and sweet cancellation email. That got my office talking. After it hit huge ratings every advertiser wanted in. We even had GOP politicians buying it at top dollar during our recent primaries. Wonder what they are going to fill it with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rickylu    38

The repeat tonight will be replaced by an episode of The Middle. The season has already been pulled from Hulu and starting tomorrow the Viacom networks will pull reruns of the original series. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mot Morenzi    1,405

Geez Louise. She had a perfectly good thing going and she has to ruin it for everyone because she can't keep her foot out of her mouth. 

Dear celebrities: it is possible to have an unexpressed thought or opinion. Not everything that crosses through your minds has to end up on Twitter. Better to sleep on it than say or do something permanently stupid. 

I liked the show. Thought it was a nice change of pace from other contemporary fare. Now she's put the rest of her cast and crew out of work. Nice one, Rosie.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neil    1,278

Oh, Roseanne, why couldn't you keep your big tweeting bazoo SHUT?!!

I have not read her tweets, nor do I care to, but cancelling her show?  Her NUMBER ONE show??  This is unprecedented in the history of television!  But just about everything that has happened in the last two years has been unprecedented.  It's ironic that people suffer the backlash of their tweets and rants except one: the president of the US.  Not excusing them, just pointing out the garlic-sandwichy subtle irony. 

For a performer/producer so racist and bigoted, the Roseanne Show has been pretty even-handed dealing with politics.  You've got Jackie promoting the "other side".  Roseanne's pro-right cracks make her character look ridiculous and I thought that was the point: that she was satirizing herself.   What about the episode where Rosanne is spying on her Muslim neighbors?  That vignette ended with both parties admitting they were just scared of each other or did I miss some underlying anti-Muslim message?

If tweeting had been popular in the 50s:  can you imagine the bigoted profanity-laden blasts that would have come from our own Bill Frawley?

I for one, can ignore the real-life Rosanne with her Grand-Canyon mouth and enjoy the show.  I fear the backlash from the bullying right who claim to be the actual persecuted ones, will use this as proof.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Freddie2    795

Ken Levine made an interesting point about how Carsey Werner shows prominently have difficult stars- Cosby, Cybill Shepherd, Brett Butler, etc. 

I really enjoyed the show fully knowing what a loose cannon Roseanne is- it’s just that her type of unstable brashness really doesn’t fly with a lot of people today. Obviously this is about more than just a tasteless joke, which shouldn’t be the sole reason for these big repercussions, and Roseanne should know she’s had a target on her back since this whole thing got started.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mot Morenzi    1,405
6 hours ago, Freddie2 said:

I really enjoyed the show fully knowing what a loose cannon Roseanne is- it’s just that her type of unstable brashness really doesn’t fly with a lot of people today. Obviously this is about more than just a tasteless joke, which shouldn’t be the sole reason for these big repercussions, and Roseanne should know she’s had a target on her back since this whole thing got started.

That's a very good point. A lot of people had it out for her just because she supported Trump. Many were just waiting for her to do something they could get her with. Low and behold, she did, and they jumped on it. The tweet was the excuse they were looking for, but it wasn't the lone reason. 

The show itself was actually pretty balanced politically. Standing up for her grandson wearing feminine clothing and defending Muslim neighbors aren't what I'd call anti-progressive subjects. But so many couldn't look past Roseanne and her history, then she just digs the hole deeper with antics like this. In many ways, she's her own worst enemy. Even the producers wanted to cancel the show after what she did. I think she should seek help for managing her feelings and emotions. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neil    1,278
18 hours ago, Mot Morenzi said:

The show itself was actually pretty balanced politically. Standing up for her grandson wearing feminine clothing and defending Muslim neighbors aren't what I'd call anti-progressive subjects. 

Agreed.  And isn't that enough?  Why must the insensitivity/meanness of real-life Rosanne Barr be more important than what the show portrayed?  Other than the last 'winning the lottery' season, I was a regular watcher of the original "Roseanne".  I had a vague knowledge of the behind the scenes turmoil: in-fighting, firings, ego-problems.  But it never showed in the final product.  "Roseanne" was TV's most accurate portrayal of lower middle class struggles.  And it was consistently FUNNY.  Thanks to, among other factors, Roseanne Conner's sledge-hammer wisecracks.  

I enjoyed the reboot so much I'm hoping ABC will reconsider the cancellation.  As I stated, I haven't read her tweets but I've seen her Ambien-blamed apologies.  Roseanne Barr may be racist but Roseanne Conner shows love to her mixed-race granddaughter, judging by the opening credits sequence.  We haven't seen much of her in the show.  Maybe ABC will consider continuing it with a 'mea culpa' episode in which Roseanne says something racist and it gets back to her son and granddaughter forcing Roseanne to confront her views head-on and see the error of her ways. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Freddie2    795

There’s been a lot of speculating about continuing the show without Roseanne! Now that’s a stupid idea. I wonder what Sandy Duncan’s up to, anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neil    1,278
18 hours ago, Freddie2 said:

There’s been a lot of speculating about continuing the show without Roseanne! Now that’s a stupid idea. I wonder what Sandy Duncan’s up to, anyway...

HAHAHA!! (Sandy Duncan)....If Barbara Pepper was around, I would suggest her as a Rosanne replacement. Or our own Jody Gilbert.  I don't know current entertainers!

The rest of the cast is so strong I think they might possibly be able to do it without Rosanne.  Darlene could carry the sarcastic wisecrack load.  There are so many ways they could get rid of Rosanne:  "Rosanne overstays her time at a tanning salon right before a "Make America Great Again" rally, is mistaken for a "woman of color", gets roughed-up by Trump's fans and, along with a busload of "dreamers", is deported to Honduras"

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neil    1,278
On 5/31/2018 at 7:29 PM, Freddie2 said:

There’s been a lot of speculating about continuing the show without Roseanne! Now that’s a stupid idea. I wonder what Sandy Duncan’s up to, anyway...

Still  chuckling about the Sandy Duncan idea....Good one!  

If "Valerie" can survive without Valerie, "Roseanne" should be able to give it a go without Roseanne. The supporting cast is so much stronger than those on the the trifle "Valerie". With the addition of Darlene's kids and DJ with his child and so-far-unseen wife (is her name IRMA?), there's a host of storyline possibilities.  I don't remember what the dispute was with Valerie Harper and "Valerie"--most likely $$$, but never again would a star think themselves invinsible even if the series title is THEIR NAME.  Valerie Harper was a major talent and a sitcom natural who should have had a hit show post-Rhoda but once Justin Bateman became popular, didn't the "Valerie" storyline focus shift to him?  Does anyone remember how they explained Valerie's absence?  In a fiendishly show of revenge, the producers eventually had Valerie killed off.  To add insult to injury, the ratings for the "Valerie's Family" incarnation sans Valerie went UP without her.  And to add even further insult, Valerie's next series attempt 4 years later, CBS's "City" (a good show as I recall), debuted mid-season opposite NBC's  "Hogan Family" and lasted only 2 months, even though "Hogans" was cancelled by NBC at the end of that season (89-90) only to be picked up by CBS for one more season: a respectable 5 year run for a forgotten (except for behind-the-scenes shenanigans) series.  MaryTMoore, Valerie, Dick Van Dyke, Danny Thomas, Sid Caesar, Bob Newhart, Betty White, Milton Berle,George Burns, Phil Silvers, Carol Burnett, Raymond Burr, Andy Griffith, Jason-Michael-Julia of Seinfeld, even Sandy Duncan!: They ALL had their humbling "Life with Lucy" experiences and some had more than one. Very few did not.   In fact I can't think of any.    "There's (INDEED) no business like show business like no business ......"  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mot Morenzi    1,405

I think the show could go on without her. The supporting cast has a lot to offer. Put Jackie and Darlene at the helm, I say. I love your suggestion for writing Roseanne out, Neil.

Roseanne's started lashing out at the co-stars who've publicly renounced her words. Tom Arnold recently said he knew something like this would happen, and even suggested she did the tweet on purpose because she WANTED the show cancelled. It just keeps getting weirder.  

Coincidentally, the day before Twittergate, I happened to rewatch "She-Devil" for the first time in years. Time has proven that a fitting title for her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Freddie2    795
45 minutes ago, Mot Morenzi said:

I think the show could go on without her. The supporting cast has a lot to offer. Put Jackie and Darlene at the helm, I say. I love your suggestion for writing Roseanne out, Neil.

Roseanne's started lashing out at the co-stars who've publicly renounced her words. Tom Arnold recently said he knew something like this would happen, and even suggested she did the tweet on purpose because she WANTED the show cancelled. It just keeps getting weirder.  

Coincidentally, the day before Twittergate, I happened to rewatch "She-Devil" for the first time in years. Time has proven that a fitting title for her. 

While I obviously have no personal experiences with her, I really think that Roseanne's level of crazy is a little bit above everyone else's. She's undoubtably been through a lot, and I wouldn't be surprised if past hardships have helped make her so unstable all these decades. Her behavior is different from, say, someone like Rosie O'Donnell, who just sounds like a nasty playground bully in her private life. I wonder the extent of "help" Roseanne has gotten, because the Ambien clearly wasn't working. It's silly to try and make excuses for her, but she just seems less accountable for her actions than other people because she's almost certainly got some type of mental illness/instability, so I feel bad for everyone all around. Don't put the fate of your hit show in the hands of someone who's cuckoo!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Freddie2    795

I was just thinking- in a more just world, Laurie Metcalf very well could have won the Oscar, Emmy, and Tony for Best Supporting Actress all in the same year! At this point chances are slim to none for an Emmy nod, but she's at least been nominated for the other two- and should have won both!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Freddie2    795

ABC has ordered ten episodes of "The Conners" for next season. It's literally Deja Valerie. Props to Roseanne for ceding advancement of the spin-off and allowing so many people to keep their jobs (at least she can clean up some of her mess). 

I think it's time for Neil to send his spec script in to the producers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Wilson    36

The show will never work without Roseanne.  The first episode might get a good sampling but after that it will be all downhill.  You need Roseanne, without her there is no show.  That's like I Love Lucy without Lucille Ball.  There are certain stars that just can't be replaced.  The Conners will be finished after the first ten episodes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×