|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 20, 2018 4:55:29 GMT -8
We're four episodes into Good Girls. It's kind of entertaining, and has a real solid cast, but I can already see the premise getting old and formulaic if the writers aren't careful. It's also suffering from a real tonal crisis, shifting uncomfortably from comedy to drama and back again without a clear sense of how to mesh the two together.
The cast is good enough to keep me watching a while longer, and there's enough ingenuity in each episode to make the ride worth it. I just hope there's more to the show than what we're getting here.
Incidentally, Mae Whitman's character is named "Annie," and I really, really hope that was intentional.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 29, 2018 15:06:44 GMT -8
The Roseanne premiere is pretty in-step with the original series. It's not as laugh-out-loud funny as the show's best episodes, but all the characters are back, and they're pretty much the same as ever. The show initially became famous for bringing an acerbic edge to the network sitcom (beating both Seinfeld and The Simpsons to the punch), and I'm glad it's retained that edge so many years later. I'm a little stunned (though perhaps I shouldn't be) by all the controversy the show has generated online. I posted a Twitter thread earlier encapsulating my thoughts about why I think a lot of the criticisms are unfounded, although I don't think Twitter is listening. |
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Apr 2, 2018 8:56:38 GMT -8
It's a little bit stunning that in an atmosphere where pretty much 90% of what is on TV nowadays is left-leaning, as soon as a show that leans less left, (and as Jeremy correctly stated in his twitter thread, it's not even all out right wing politically or anything close to that), people get up in arms.
Part of the reason for the big divide right now is that conservatives feel vastly underrepresented in pop culture. I can't remember who said this, it might have been on this site, but liberals feel stifled and defensive because they have no power in government, and conservatives feel stifled and defensive because they have no power in the media. Roseanne is just trying to be an honest portrayal of middle America in the Trump era. It doesn't need to become a political battle about how it should or shouldn't exist, it's trying to portray an area of America that is a little bit underportrayed right now. So let's stop with the controversy and let it do its thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Apr 2, 2018 13:19:07 GMT -8
That quote you mention is from Ross Douthat. (I referred to it a few months ago on the "Best TV Shows of 2017" thread.) I'd say it's a key statement to understanding why Roseanne was resurrected, and it also explains some of the backlash as well. I also don't think there would be quite as much backlash if the premiere hadn't become the most-watched network sitcom episode in years.
I'm mostly just bugged by the people (and there are a lot of these - critics, former fans, etc.) stating that the show and its star have "changed" since the '90s. I imagine these are the same people who will praise the upcoming Murphy Brown revival for being "sharper and edgier" in its politics than the original. Ugh.
|
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Apr 4, 2018 19:38:24 GMT -8
I didn't realize until now that the editor of (thus far) eight episodes of Legion also edited 32 episodes of BtVS from Seasons 1-5, including Restless. I couldn't place the name Regis Kimble until I finally looked it up.
Anyways, the Legion premiere last night was pretty wild. Yeah, like many premieres, it was a setting-the-table kind of episode, but this show is so incredibly stylish that it's really quite captivating, even when the plot isn't flying forward. Great visuals, great music, very creative art direction and character design. This should be really fun.
|
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Apr 5, 2018 7:24:28 GMT -8
Latest in social media about Roseanne: People are now complaining the jokes are too realistic and too representative of the type of jokes that a character in Roseanne's situation and with her beliefs might use.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Apr 5, 2018 8:18:27 GMT -8
The Roseanne tweets are just going to get worse and more ill-informed, especially now that the show has been renewed. I just had to correct someone on Twitter who inaccurately posted about the Week 2 "ratings drop." Not even TV sitcoms are immune to the #FakeNews epidemic.
(As a random aside, I suddenly wonder how Twitter would have responded to the original Roseanne finale, had it existed then. I'm guessing that "not well" would be an understatement.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Zarnium on Apr 5, 2018 8:21:53 GMT -8
RE: Roseanne, I know almost nothing about the show, but if it's anything like this USA Today article describes, I don't really understand what people are so pissed about. Doesn't sound like a far-right screed to me, it just sounds like it accurately represents a diverse range of ideologies. I don't really get the controversy over those pictures of Roseanne Barr dressed as Hitler, either. Or rather, I understand why they're controversial, but the reaction has been drastically blowing it out of proportion. Like, what, her show should be canceled and she should be banned from show business because she used Nazi imagery as part of a joke, once? So have tons of other writers and comedians over the last seven decades, including beloved liberal icons who never get criticized for it. Remember that "Abradolf Lincler" character who appeared on Rick and Morty? No one's calling for Dan Harmon's head on a platter. |
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Apr 5, 2018 8:48:58 GMT -8
Roseanne Barr has amassed a ton of controversy over the years (just Google her name and "National Anthem" for the most infamous example). Her original series was pretty much the '90s standard for edgy family sitcoms, seen as a rebuttal to the more treacly family shows that aired during that time as part of TGIF. But only lately have people started targeting her for it, because we live in the Age of Targeting. (That name sounded better in my head.)
As you say, the show does portray a wide range of ideologies, more so than most other shows currently airing. The most tangible connection it has to conservatives is the fact that Roseanne - both real and fictional - voted for Trump (who, incidentally, isn't even mentioned by name in the new season). Unfortunately, for the social-media outrage machine, that's more than enough to set things off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zarnium on Apr 6, 2018 18:38:17 GMT -8
The fact that liberals want Roseanne Barr to be silenced for her political views baffles me, too. They'll talk big about how they want women to be able to speak their minds and not be ignored or shut down, but if it's a woman who voted for Trump? Can't have that. On the same tack, they'll get super angry over anyone who question's Obama's intelligence, temperament, or motives... but if it's Ben Carson, we can talk about how stupid he is all we want! Or any criticism of or focus on Hillary Clinton's appearance is sexist, but we can call Donald Trump a fat orange blob with ugly hair, no problem. Or...
...I'll just stop there, or I'll be here all day.
|
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Apr 6, 2018 19:01:22 GMT -8
While I agree it's better to criticize Trump for his words and actions than his appearance, he's publicly ridiculed others for their appearance on numerous occasions, so hey, he shouldn't dish it out if he can't take it.
And if I saw Hillary Clinton regularly and publicly comment on others' appearance, the same would apply to her.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zarnium on Apr 7, 2018 3:57:55 GMT -8
What I take issue with is people taking cheap jabs at Trump for his personal appearance, but then getting very angry and demanding retribution for people who do the same for Democrats. For example, remember when that one woman wrote that Michelle Obama was an " ape in heels" and the internet called for her to resign? Because I guess she and any financial dependents don't deserve to have a source of income because of one insulting tweet? I find this to be a pretty noxious double standard, partly because as a white a man I don't appreciate my "allies" thinking it's ok to demean a white man for his appearance, and partly because it's a self-defeating action that doesn't help anyone, and is just a selfish indulgence on the part of the speaker. No conservative is going to look at this and be convinced to modify their behavior in any way. |
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Apr 7, 2018 9:09:00 GMT -8
At the risk of bringing in material only familiar to Snipe, I've been watching the BBC2 80s comedy series The Young Ones, which follows the exploits of four college roommates with the archetypes of "hustler," "activist," "punk," and (loathed) "hippie." It's quite surreal at moments, including an interlude in the pilot where the punk, concluding that the university can't tear down the house they're living in if he destroys it first, crashes through a wall only to land in an adjacent house where two unrelated characters, never to be seen again, spend five minutes enacting what looks to be a scene from a Russian novel around a lone candle. It's quite daft, so I'm eager to see more of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Apr 7, 2018 19:06:43 GMT -8
The fact that liberals want Roseanne Barr to be silenced for her political views baffles me, too. They'll talk big about how they want women to be able to speak their minds and not be ignored or shut down, but if it's a woman who voted for Trump? Can't have that. On the same tack, they'll get super angry over anyone who question's Obama's intelligence, temperament, or motives... but if it's Ben Carson, we can talk about how stupid he is all we want! Or any criticism of or focus on Hillary Clinton's appearance is sexist, but we can call Donald Trump a fat orange blob with ugly hair, no problem. Or... ...I'll just stop there, or I'll be here all day. The double-standard is especially perturbing because conservative women and minorities seem to get more vitriol directed at them from the opposition then conservative white men. That's a byproduct of a culture which "expects" certain demographics to vote certain ways, and punishes those who go against the grain. The Roseanne controversy just baffles me because the show feels gift-wrapped for the political Left. Hollywood has made a show that allows rural America to see their economic state reflected back at them, while also giving them a better understanding of socially progressive policies. If Democrats were actually thinking properly, they would be promoting the show for all its worth, instead of calling for bans and boycotts and whatnot. (Also, it's kind of amazing that Roseanne has managed to stir up more controversy in two weeks than The Middle - which has a similar premise, airs on the same network, and stars an actress who is far more conservative than Barr - has stirred up in nine years.) |
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Apr 7, 2018 20:22:54 GMT -8
Part of the reason, IMO, people go after Trump's appearance, is because they feel it's a pretty accurate representation of his inner self (that which really draws the negative attention)...thus, the caricatures and whatnot. And as I said, if he didn't mock others' appearances, he likely wouldn't get half of that.
And a person who would say something horrible and racist like that about Michelle Obama (a warm, generous individual, by all accounts), who has never, to my knowlege, publicly disparaged others' appearances, wouldn't have enough character to resign under any circumstances anyways. But if their employer decided to part ways with them over such a comment, I wouldn't have any sympathy for them. That level of gross bigotry has no place in any work environment, and I highly doubt it was limited to one isolated comment. But hey, there will always be racist employers who are more than willing to hire like-minded individuals, so whatever.
|
|
