wondering if this is going to be a vehicle for every politically correct stereotype. (does that make sense?)
I am in the group that couldn’t care less about an actors political views and just enjoy watching the shows… but I think Darlene is going to throw everything at us ( cannot think of her real name at this minute)
** my daughter walks to the beat of her own drum and I do not have issues with anyone that is alternative … but a 10 year old ?? I find it odd
My nephew, formally my niece, started identifying (strongly) as male at about age 4 or 5.
Cross-dressing, gender non-conformity and transgender-ism are real things that real people who really exist, at all ages, live with and deal with. And they live quite happy and normal lives. Why shouldn’t they be represented by people on television?
I’m not a man or a parent or a spouse or thin person but I manage to watch and enjoy television shows with characters who represent those types of people every day.
I haven’t seen the show yet (obviously), but I think the real Roseanne’s outspoken Trump support has made this more of a thing than it will prove to be on screen.
I loved the original show, thought the kids were super realistic (I knew families who acted and talked to each other like that, if not more so) and am hoping the revival can at least come close to what the pre-lottery episodes managed to do.
I’ve been looking forward to it and just read a review. Yes, the premise is that Roseanne and Jackie haven’t spoken since the election, which leads to one of their typical, loud discussions. But, according to the article anyway, that is just a small part and the whole show does not revolve around that. Does anyone here think RB is stupid / doesn’t know her audience? I was not aware of her political affiliation (how did I miss that?) and would have sworn she’d be a big ol’ liberal. Regardless, what a great, topical premise for some good old Connor verbal warfare. I mean, I quite like Will & Grace but even I get sick of the lefty love fest once in a while (and I’m a lefty).
Anyway, the reviews are saying it’s Darlene, not Roseanne, who’s really at the heart of the new episodes. No complaint from me on that score.
Here’s what I thought was a good review, from a Buzzfeed reviewer who saw 3 episodes made available to critics. It addresses Roseanne’s Trump support.
I can’t stand Roseanne or her politics, but I like the other actors/characters, particularly John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf so I’ll watch despite Roseanne. I’m looking forward to it.
Will probably hang around long enough to see how the Dan story is handled. If Sara Chalke plays a sexy nurse like she did in Scrubs, I may hang around a little longer.
Meh. It’s television not that big a deal
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
I just watched it. We laughed several times. They handled the Election stuff pretty funnily.
A bunch talking points made into jokes. I am not impressed with the acting. It was a bit stiff. John Goodman was great.
And the second installment was a lot less political than the first one.
Darlene’s little boy was a good actor. He’s cute too. D.J. didn’t say much.
I watched it with what I thought was a open mind. I enjoyed the original series.
This was terrible. The acting was like watching a middle school play.
The original started out well but faded after a couple of seasons.
I was favorably impressed with it. The politics was tedious in the first episode, but I guessed that this was just the hook, and first episodes – especially of a sitcom with as many characters as this one – are nearly always weak. The second half was much improved and the Trump vs. Clinton stuff pretty much vanished.
I also loved the in-jokes and callbacks. Getting Sarah Chalke as Andrea was brilliant.
Agreed. I also loved Dan’s comments about Roseanne’s (unpublished) manuscript. The timeline is a bit screwed up. Harris should be about 20-21, not still in high school.
I thought it was pretty great, TBH. I watched with my Trump-voting parents and I thought the viewpoints presented were pretty even. The family dynamic doesn’t seem to have changed, which is good - nobody’s softer or harder than they used to be. I thought they handled the storyline with Mark, the cross-dressing boy, quite well!
I enjoyed it but the acting was a little off. Maybe it will pick up. All of the original cast seemed a little stilted IMO. I did laugh a few times.
This is shallow, but all of the original casts’ voices sounded lower to me. Of course they all look a lot older but I wasn’t expecting their voices to have changed so much! Goranson, Gilbert, and Fishman were kids so their voices would change more, but still they were young adults by the end of the original series.
Eliot Reed did not go to seven years of sexy medical school to be called a sexy nurse. Sexy doctor; if you please.
I enjoyed it. But has Sara Gilbert found the Fountain of Youth? Darlene hasn’t aged a bit, and she could pass for a high school student. The bit about having a gay daughter went on too long…
Nice tribute to the late Glen Quinn, who played Mark.
I understand the Johnny Galeki is going to be in one episode as David.That one I definitely will watch.