tessaray

Trader Joe's.

Actually, the way David handled Mark's death seems realistic enough to me. We all handle pain and grief in our own ways. And David didn't have much emotional resilience thanks to his childhood trauma.

I thought it was funny. It felt much more natural too, which helped. Still, I thought the smart speaker was kind of obvious. If Alexa can inadvertently email sensitive conversations to contacts and get used by the police in investigations because it's always listening (and recording) no one thought VAL might be an issue? Though the ending was amusing.

I would love to be able to see the original pre and post Williams Roseanne scripts, just to see the difference in vision. Of course once Roseanne was in charge, it did become her show and she was responsible for a huge part of its success. (And its many rough/weird spots.) Still, the show has good bones and a lot of that is due to the original concept for a blue collar family sitcom, as well as the contributions of the rest of the cast, crew, and writers.

Matt Williams might disagree that everyone owes Roseanne for their success. Roseanne pretty much took over his ensemble show and forced him out. It's interesting that even in 1988, the producers were considering dumping RB and just going with John Goodman. http://articles.latimes.com/1989-01-26/entertainment/ca-1949_1_hit-show I suspect that Roseanne took the settlement money and walked away thinking that either there was no way The Conners would be viable or that ABC would give in and have her back at some point. When I said I had some sympathy for her, I was referring to the realization that she wasn't indispensable. I'm guessing from the way she is lashing out at The Conners, that it really must sting. (Especially that the show is good without her.) But yeah, she dug her own grave and jumped in with both feet. No sympathy on that front.

So, it shouldn't exist even if it's good? Not sure I agree with that logic. And while I have some sympathy for Roseanne Barr, in that The Conners have moved on without her and that has to really hurt - none of us get to control how our legacies are written. We only get to provide the raw material. Final paragraphs from the article:

Lots of looks, no posts... :-) For those who may not be sure what belongs in an episode thread vs. Past and Present, perhaps an example might help. In E01, Dan and Mark have a discussion about choosing a seatmate so he can sit by a boy he likes. If you just want to comment on that, the episode thread is the place. However, if you wanted to also compare at length the scene with the Roseanne revival and Dan's reaction to Mark and the concept of gender fluidity, as well as his reactions to gay characters in the original Roseanne, that kind of discussion is ideally suited to Past and Present. A good rule of thumb is to move a conversation here if it is delving more to the past than the present and is covering more territory than would work in an episode or individual character thread. Anything you might have posted in the Roseanne forum about canon and continuity would also be at home here.

It might just be my imagination but I thought that Darlene's crack about David being the daughter Roseanne always wanted actually had a tinge of jealousy underlying the snark - especially with the looks they gave each other. It didn't go over well in the previous season when she found out that Roseanne had been communicating with David about the kids. And David and Roseanne had their own relationship outside his standing as Darlene's boyfriend/husband. The writers and actors packed a lot of layers and continuity in that little scene.

It wasn't marrying Mark that affected Becky, it was Mark dying. His death was also the end of David and Darlene, as David went off the rails afterwards, too. I don't think Darlene was being a hypocrite about the teen sex just angry that Blue let Harris have sex and that Harris used the opportunity knowing her parents would have objections. Darlene was pretty compassionate about the boy not texting or calling Harris the next day and non-judgmental about the drug store stop. ETA: If you have access to the last season, it's worth watching for the backstory and where all the Conners are at now.

This episode was originally intended to be the 4th, not the 2nd. So there's that.

Sorry, I was referring to abortion. It's just the way some of my friends refer to it. I should fix it.

I'm really hoping that Darlene and Harris are red herrings and that it's Becky. Because I want at least one of the Conners to be happy and a pregnancy storyline for either Darlene or Harris wouldn't be. Darlene has enough on her shoulders, Harris is too young and Geena is too normal. A pregnant Becky would give Darlene plenty of things to snark about and there's enough drama with the drinking to keep it topical but not too controversial. (If it was Darlene, they would at least have to give some airtime to abortion and I can't see that being a big laugh generator. I like The Conners but it isn't Maude.)

Was the mention of DJ working as a vending machine maintenance guy the first one or did I miss something in the previous episode?

I haven't seen most of what Justin Long has been in but I always recognize him as the kid from Galaxy Quest and the Mac guy in the commercials.

Yes. Next week is Halloween themed.

They stopped on the way home to buy the morning after pill, so not Harris - this time anyway.

Just a reminder that everyone is entitled to their own opinions as long as they don't break site rules. Discussing religion can be challenging but as long as it's directed at the show and not fellow posters, it's fine.

I thought it was brilliantly done - and I was very skeptical they could do the subject justice before watching it.

Partisan politicking is prohibited on these forums. (Please see this post in our FAQ.) Except in direct show context, avoid citing politicians, parties, or Administrations. This includes political topics raised by Roseanne Barr. What does that mean when it comes to The Conners? It means that political topics presented within the show may be discussed in that direct context, but posts containing personal political views are subject to moderation. Like Roseanne before it, the show addresses cultural and social issues. Social and cultural issues are not the province of any one party. Discussion of these issues is welcome here, but your posts should neither reference, nor make explicit, your own political affiliation. If you have a question on any of this, please PM the forum moderators, @Pallas, @statsgirl and @tessaray. Thank you.

Partisan political discussion is prohibited on PTV. (Please see this post in our FAQ.) Limited discussion of politics as used in an episode is acceptable. This topic is for speculation on The Conners upcoming episodes and The Conners lack of political content is off-topic. Posts attempting to start political discussions will be removed and may lead to warnings or other consequences.

Air date: Oct 23, 2018 Note: ABC's website calls this episode 103. No word on when the original second episode will air.

Air date: Oct 23, 2018

Yeah, the Blue episode was for November sweeps. The B plot of the church episode has Mark doing a survey about the election, which won't make sense if they push it out past that. Now I'm more interested in seeing why they moved it out.

I was watching him in the background specifically looking to see where his hands were and it didn't seem like it but easy enough for the show to claim it was if they decide to go with it later.

I'm okay with the Diana character. They need an antagonist and the actress is good. Most sitcom characters start out one dimensional anyway. (And every workplace has the young, slightly obnoxious, on the way up executive.) I used to love Murphy's rants and am glad CB can still pull them off. I kind of wish Miles had been the one to pull out his phone and record it though.