Mmmfloorpie
-
Posts
371 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Mmmfloorpie
-
-
17 hours ago, Pete Martell said:
I don't see it as a repeat of the Jackie and Fred story. For one thing, I thought that story was much more unpleasant and forced (by this time they had started making Jackie's character so one-note and unpleasant it led to me quitting the show, along with the overall decline in the writing). Jackie was also a different person than Becky is - Becky is much more fragile, which the show only occasionally acknowledges. The story of a woman who thought she was past her chance to have a child only to then get pregnant when she didn't want to has been around for a long time. There are definitely parallels with Jackie and Becky, which could and possibly should be acknowledged, but I would never look at this story and think it was a repeat from season 6.
My point was if you read a paragraph long synopsis of the episode you could mistake it for a season 6 episode.
"Aging single woman gets pregnant after one night stand. Family attempts to force her to accept support from father (30min. CC)"
Jackie wasn't fragile? This was after the Fisher incident and that was used as a reason why she didn't want to let Fred in.
-
58 minutes ago, ItsHelloPattiagain said:
I found it disconcerting that Jackie "who-is-Lanford's-leading-life-coach" wouldn't have drawn from her previous experience with Fred - i.e. how she pushed Fred away for all that time when she was pregnant with Andy (FREE ANDY!!!). Why wouldn't she have said "Listen, Becky, back when I had Andy, I pushed Fred away the same way you're doing with Emilio - and I realize now that was foolish and not in the best interests of Andy" (or something similar). I'm always looking for ways for this show to tie into what was said and done in the previous Roseanne show (as a LONG time viewer of the latter).
It's like the writers pulled a scene direct from the previous Roseanne series except interjected Becky into it instead of Jackie. Next thing Emilio will be stuffing money into Becky's tip jar and Nancy will come and steal it away.
That last paragraph made me LOL!
It's so silly how they go out of their way to avoid references to the original show.
Either, they are trying to make this 'its own show' that's not dependent on the original, or the people who write it haven't seen the original.
I have to think it's the latter. If they wanted it to be its own show they wouldn't be lifting a storyline right out of the original. I'm sorry but this Becky/Emilio story is an EXACT copy of Jackie/Fred. Single woman getting older who wants a child before she gets too old. Gets pregnant off a one night stand and pushes the father away because she wants to do it on her own. If you read the TvGuide synopsis, you'd think it was a repeat from season 6.
If it is the latter, it's incredibly sad that they are so ignorant of the original they don't even realize they are plagiarising it!
I think the series ends next week with Becky reconciling with Emilo and Darlene and the kids move back to Chicago with Ben. DJ's total number of lines throught the revival being under a dozen.
-
5
-
-
How awkward this episode is! Juliette Lewis says "let's talk about birthing experiences" and Jackie is ignored. I almost thought they were going to clear up whether Andy exists or not.
Also with Becky and the bus boy... She refuses to allow him into her life and Jackie totally sticks up for him saying he only wants to help out and support them. Well anyone remember Fred??
-
19
-
-
2 hours ago, Not4Me said:
I think Michael Fishman has gotten the Sarah Chalke nuBecky edit...they didn’t know what to do with her so she became a background character. At the time, part of it was that she just wasn’t a good actress back then (until Scrubs later on).
Of course the ironic part is now in the few guest appearances Sarah Chalke made in the revival, her character made much more of a presence than Fishman.
You're right. Becky and Darlene were symbiotic characters. Like the Odd Couple. Their characters conflicted which created some nice storylines.
The best thing to happen to Darlene was the depression. It opened up a whole new side to the character and something that hadn't been done on a sitcom before. Meanwhile Becky pretty much stayed the same beauty queen teacher's pet until the character left in season 5.
At that point the writer's kept going to the Darlene depression/jaded outlook well for the "kid stories" which were usually the B plots.
The reason they brought in Sarah Chalke and revived Becky's character was to fill the void Darlene created when Gilbert went to college. Problem was the Becky character had missed out on 2 years of development and by outward appearances she was still just the pretty blonde. All the Becky stories really just revolved around her conflicts with Mark which got tired pretty quick.
And then of course the storylines became less about the family and more about Roseanne and Jackie at the restaurant and Roseanne and Nancy going to the Lesbian bar and Jackie and Fred etc.
-
3
-
-
Fishman isn't THAT bad of an actor that they only give him 1 line every other episode.
He could handle more. Maybe he doesn't want more to do or the writers don't know what to do.
This is really sad to say but I think they pigeonholed him as a "wounded warrior". The writer's think that's his one storyline and there's no comic angle to it. He had that one exchange with Dan last season and now they don't know what to do with him. Can he become Mr DJ goes to Washington to fix all the veteran's issues? Could he handle more dramatic scenes of him dealing with PTSD? Is that even the right tone for a show like this? No on all counts.
-
3
-
-
I liked it but does this mean the show is off until after Christmas now?
-
2
-
-
Wish it was Vicki Lawerence reprising her role as Phyllis Zimmer instead of Katey as a new ex high school crush.
I had a scary thought... Maybe they never call back to the original show because then they'd have to pay the writers who created them?
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, BlossomCulp said:
Exactly. And I think Sara Gilbert is smart enough to want to have a successful show not a show that is all about her! Darlene and her family are a natural centre for the show but that doesn't mean Sara Gilbert ever intended it to be a show that revolved around her. Maybe she should have foreseen that Roseanne Barr would self destruct but obviously she didn't and the original show was an ensemble show with Roseanne at the centre as she should have been. The Conners had to move on and inevitably IMO Darlene became the centre. But not because Sara Gilbert is the executive producer!
Season 10 wasn't Roseanne-centric either though. Darlene was still the lead but in Roseanne's shadow. Now there's no shadow and Darlene is clearly the lead.
The show being about Darlene because Sara is EP isn't a bad thing. It's just something you have to consider. The revival idea took off because she had Goodman on The Talk and they did a back door pilot with that Roseanne inspired sketch on the couch.
Roseanne was persona non gratis in Hollywood even at that point. Goodman and Metcalf had successful careers acting in other people's production and Lecy and Fishman hadn't worked in "the business" for decades.
Gilbert was the driving force and wanted to make it happen and she had the means to do it. In that situation, no person is going to just step aside and play second fiddle to someone else, even to Roseanne. The revival was always going to revolve around her character. Look at season 10. Roseanne is practically an extra. The only episode I can remember her being on screen for most of the show was the Muslim neighbours one. Sara didn't just take the reigns once Roseanne left, the original premise of the revival was her being the lead with Roseanne just being the figurehead.
Again, it's not a bad thing, but it would be more accurately called "The Sara Gilbert Show" and not "The Conners".
-
4
-
-
3 hours ago, jsbt said:
That's really unfair, IMO. Using Darlene and her kids as a major avenue for new story was a natural fit, and the show was moving there with her primed as Roseanne's spiritual successor since Season 5-6 of the original show. I think the story's been spread pretty evenly both last season and especially this one. Lecy is being used much more substantially.
She's exec producer of the show lol. Ever notice the "gilbert productions" title card in the end credits?
The revival would have never happened without her clout in Hollywood from The Talk and appearances on Big Bang Theory.
-
2
-
-
On 08/12/2018 at 3:00 PM, jsbt said:
They've moved the show on without her much, much easier than I expected. A big part of that may have to do with how frankly creaky Roseanne was as a performer last season vs. most of the rest of the cast, and so was rarely a massive plot mover that season, at least not entirely on her own. The next big hiccup I can foresee is if Dan ever moves on, which I can't see happening any time soon and I don't feel it would be smart. Further, there's very very few women you can find who could deal with standing in the shadow of Roseanne after decades of history, even with the murderer's row of brilliant TV and film character actresses who'd be available.
The revival is really a Sara Gilbert vehicle that used Roseanne's name ID for free marketing. Most stories revolved around Darlene and her kids and Roseanne was just the B story.
That's why it wasn't hard for her to be excised from the show. Never would have worked if they fired her like she almost was in season 2. She was a domineering presence back then. It worked on the show Valerie because she basically played a typical sitcom mom and Jason Bateman became a breakout star.
-
3 hours ago, zxy556575 said:
There's a separate thread for the nostalgic nitpicking debates. I personally think it veers a bit off topic in the episode threads, is all.
True. The reason it started is because I wanted to post my favourite quote from the episode and just threw out the part about the hair. Didn't think it would have any legs though.
But, sometimes the best part of a discussion forum is when the conversation veers slightly.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Yeah No said:
Yes, I totally agree with you, and agree that these are nitpicks because I enjoy the show too.
I notice that a lot of period shows and movies often try very hard to get the period stuff right down to the littlest detail, like home decor, cars, food, music, etc., but then they goof when it comes to hair. I've even read articles about this online, like that they do it consciously, because they don't want to offend the stars and make them wear hairstyles that are uncomfortable for them. But then it should be no surprise that it really irks the audience that might remember that time period because it's super frustrating to see them get so much right but then bloop so badly in one area. It's only natural to be irritated by something like that.
Speaking of period accurateness, I always thought "That 70s Show" did a pretty good job with the clothing, although it was a mishmash of different years all put together. Being older now when I see that kind of thing it gives me a very odd feeling because it's like entering this alternate universe where everything is close, but not quite like the one you remember. Which reminds me of a "Star Trek Next Generation" episode, but I digress.
Haha, "Parallels"?
I wasn't a fan of That 70s Show but you are absolutely right about it having accurate hair. Topher Grace had ear muffs, Kutcher had a perfect 70s do too. Kelso and Fez as well.
Another example of getting the hair right is Dazed and Confused.
Maybe the hair isn't too wild yet since the show is set in the early 70s presumably because if they get an 8 year run they don't want to be in the 80s by season 3 lol.
The clothes are also vaguely 70s but not quite right. Sort of like a production designer going through pages and pages of clothes on Amazon to find 70s looking clothes instead of the genuine article. But I guess the farther we get from the 70s the harder it is to find authentic items.
The house looks very 70s though. Lots of period cars on the streets in outdoor shots too. Again, I do really enjoy the show.
4 hours ago, Yeah No said:That's great but it's important enough to some people to nitpick about stuff like that incessantly on many show threads on this board, too. It doesn't mean we don't appreciate the show. If everyone stopped watching a show because stuff about it irked them, these boards would be mostly silent, LOL.
https://www.datalounge.com/thread/10888759-period-tv-shows-movies-that-got-the-look-all-wrong
There are people who spend their careers listing time period errors and other inconsistencies too (scroll down for an extensive list):
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodCostuming
I have often thought some of these same things about these same shows/movies!
Perhaps we have too much time on our hands and should worry about more important things but I personally get enjoyment from noticing these things. YMMV.
I'd personally love being a continuity person on a movie/tv show.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, SmithW6079 said:
I think Eddie is supposed to be a jock. They've made him appear to be not the sharpest tool in the shed, but he's not a dweeb. Out of all the sons, he's probably the most like his father. Frank is the dweeb.
I thought it interesting that this is the second or third time they've asked Eddie to watch the baby. I would have thought Frank would jump at the chance.
I expected that when Mike and Peg were in the confessional, they would end up having a discussion with the priest in the middle (literally and figuratively).
Personally, I don't give a shit if someone's hair is an inch shorter than it "should" be for the time or if Peg's hair has a flip.
I hope to see the show in it's entirety at some point. I've become really bad at remembering to watch network tv at specific times in this on demand world.
I remember an episode he had his girlfriend in his room and he was acting very dweby.
My only point with the hair is it's something I'ved noticed in shows or movies set in the 70s. The women usually have accurate hair because it's probably just a wig. But the men never have time accurate hair because the show went in production too soon for them to grow it out or the actors just don't want to sport a 70s do in their contemporary lives.
-
3
-
-
19 hours ago, AnnaRose said:
Sorry, I can't agree with the use of 'everbody' in your statement. I think they may have skipped the opening theme in this episode, but it shows all of the males lined up for haircuts outside. It looked like Peggy gives them all military style buzz cuts. (They are not paying for haircuts for eight boys.) Anyway... should probably carry on any further discussion about this on the My Generation thread. (I'm done with it though, because there's no point in arguing about whether or not everybody had hair covering their ears.)
We are having a polite discussion about it, what's wrong with that?
9 hours ago, Yeah No said:The hairstyles on this show have been bothering me too, but mostly because they look too modern and too precise to be home cut. And judging from Catholic school class photos around that time like here and here, some young men wore their hair covering their ears, some did not. I think they definitely needed to have more volume in their hair if not covering their ears. You know, parting it way to the side with a big long bang combed over. That seemed to be the most common style back then everywhere, even in public school in my class photo that year:
Yes I totally agree. The third oldest son (I think) is particularly bothersome. He has that spiked bangs Caesar style haircut circa 1999.
The second oldest red headed son also bothers me because he wears all these really fitted shirts and he looks like an Abercrombie and Fitch model on weekends. Yet his character seems like he's supposed to be kind of a dweeb. Just put him in a loose fitting button down with oversized collar and a funky pattern paired with bell bottoms.
But these are just nitpicks. Obviously I like the show enough to come here and post about it.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, AnnaRose said:
No way! Not in my catholic family, and pretty much all of the boys in school had short hair. Lawrence growing his hair long after he became an adult and lived away makes sense. But for the other boys to have long hair... no, not going to happen. One of the previous episode even had Mike yelling at one of the boys to "get a haircut!" even though his hair was already quite short.
Yep, especially in Catholic school and in conservative Catholic families in general.
Not down to your shoulders long.
But everybody had hair that partially covered their ears unless they were in the military.
-
The best line for me was when the one kid says "the do it all the time on tv. All these actors who don't look alike pretending to be brothers and sisters" and there's a brief self referential pause before the next line.
I only watch this show because it's after The Conners.
It's decent but to me it's more a costume drama than a show where I feel like it's actually set in the 70s. The clothes and hairstyles especially aren't 70s enough. All the boys should have hair long enough to make wings that cover their ears. Every boy in the 70s and early 80s had a haircut like this but none do in this show.
-
6
-
-
39 minutes ago, jhlipton said:
Xosha Kai Roquemore seems like a better actress than Maya Lynne Robinson, but that could be the writing (I loved her on The Mindy Project) -- I'm willing to give Maya a chance and hope that the writing for her improves. I'm not sure why Xhosa was replaced -- she's not that busy for such a small part. I can't help but wonder if her departure was in some way linked to Barr's.
I really know nothing about the two actresses but I would speculate they wanted to expand the role and make the character a bit "tougher" and the producers felt she wasn't a good choice for that new role.
-
10 hours ago, jhlipton said:
As opposed to every other character on the show.
The phrase "work twice as hard to get half as much" struck me. Systemic blinders run so deep that people often can't see it, and try to justify it when it's pointed out. I am most definitely NOT calling anyone a racist, just noting that words and actions speak for themselves.
Lol yes, the other characters are grating on me too.
I stated in a previous post how Roseanne being shrill is different from Geena being shrill. From season 5 on Roseanne did become overly shrill and the show really suffered. It was a lot more mean spirited after that point. This is how Geena plays it.
The pre season 5 Roseanne whom America fell in love with was shrill yes, but she did it in a really special way. She was more of a "wise cracker" and not vindictive. You could see a glint in her eye or a smirk on her face when she said all of her lines. I always love when she'd crack up midway through a line.
The "loudmouth" things she'd say were also very ironic or satirical of a patriarchal society. There was a lot of subtext and insights into human nature too. She was only a "witch" starting in season 5.
From what I've seen of Geena she just comes in and nags nags nags. The season 10 Skype Geena seemed a lot more laid back from what we saw of her.
-
2
-
-
On 25/11/2018 at 4:37 AM, Cherpumple said:
I agree, and in this vein, I was REALLY hoping that Becky's baby daddy would be someone from the original show. My list of options included Chip from the bowling alley, Jimmy Meltreeger, the Tongue Bandit, Darlene's crush Barry, and of course Dean Dean the Son-in-Law Machine. I even had Ziggy as an outlier. Any one of these would have made me so much happier than a random bus boy who so far just seems like an excuse for them to do a heavy-handed immigration storyline.
Agreed on everything. You know there will be an episode about Dan and them finding out the bus boy is illegal. I missed the one last night so maybe that already happened lol.
-
On 27/11/2018 at 1:59 PM, peacheslatour said:
It's also on TV Land on Saturdays. I have a little trouble watching some of the episodes. They just had the one where DJ doesn't want to kiss Geena and Roseanne accuses Dan of being racist. It was very difficult to watch in light of her awful tweets.
She is a different person now than she was.
Post Tweet it's harder to watch the Muslim episode in season 10.
-
2
-
-
42 minutes ago, Pete Martell said:
I don't feel like everything Geena says or does is a stereotype. I think we barely see her, and when we do see her very little is based on anything about her or in her own life, so the scenes are more likely to come across that way. For instance, we seem to frequently have her mention religion. There's nothing wrong with that, but it feels like "she is a Christian" and "she's in the army" are about all we get for traits. There's a way to be a supporting character and still be allowed more dimension.
I actually thought that Darlene's boss (who I found out was in the Twin Peaks revival - as a shouty fed) was kind of like Dan. It made me wonder if Darlene is moving on from David issues to daddy issues.
Well we will have to see more of the new love interest before we can say for sure I guess.
With Geena though, I think it's pretty clear how they are using her. The Conners are the lame white people and she's the fast talking black who shakes them up a bit. In a way she's kind of like the new Roseanne. Sort of a loudmouth who "cuts through the crap" and says what's on her mind. Roseanne always did that with a glint her eye or a smile on her face or said something with a really ironic subtext to it. It made her abrasiveness more endearing. Watch her do her "housewife" standup routine on Carson to see what I mean. To me they are trying to do that with Geena but obviously she is no Roseanne and the writing isn't as good so she comes off really repulsive.
-
4
-
-
Hate to be contrarian here but this was not my favourite episode. No laughs in this one for me.
Just a smile at the milkshake part. I feel like that scene was only in the ep because someone said "wasn't there something about a milkshake in the original?" They only had a vague remembrance of it. Why do I say that? Because nobody said "thick thick". I know the people who work on the show aren't fans like us and I'm sure none of the actors ever rewatched the whole series (besides maybe Michael), but throw the fans a bone. This show would be way more popular if it acknowledged the original more. I watch because I'm a Roseanne fan. If this show was a standalone show with no connection to a previous immensley popular sitcom, it would have been cancelled long ago. Maybe they don't do that because they want it to be its own show. Personally, I think it's because no one who works on it knows enough about the original to do it justice.
Also, Geena is REALLY grating on me. When we first found out the character was recast, I stated this is probably because with Roseanne's death they wanted to expand the character and get a comedic actress. I think we can definitively now say that was right. I don't mind that she has a bigger role, but why does she have to constantly play it at that "jive talking, tell-it-like-it-is, black woman" stereotype level? Take a lesson from Anne Marie, who was probably my favourite non regular cast member. She acted like a normal person most of the time but then would insert that type of "oh no you didn't" remark when it was appropriate and it was way funnier. Geena is at that level ALL THE TIME and she comes off as someone you wouldn't want to spend time with in real life.
This new Darlene love interest is also disappointing. The actor who plays him is "straight out of central casting" and doesn't look like anyone who would actually live in Lanford. I guess this is a perk of being Exec Producer and getting to pick your boyfriend. Neil should have been the new love interest but he could have been played tough like the newspaper boss instead of a whimp. I could buy him as the editor who singlehandedly runs a small newspaper.
This Becky baby thing and not know the father because she sleeps with all these latino guys who work at a borderline offensively stereotypical Mexican restaurant (again, in Lanford IL? Really?)... What happened to this character? Everytime there's a scene at the restaurant it's like someone changed the channel to Two Drunk Girls.
-
3
-
-
20 hours ago, Bastet said:
I don't believe we heard a cause of death, but I did miss two episodes of the revival season of Roseanne, so it's possible I missed it. I don't think we'll get an episode focused on it, but I suspect we'll get some more background on Mark's death and its impact on Becky via this pregnancy storyline -- she didn't wind up having a baby with her husband, wasn't planning on motherhood after that, and is now pregnant by one of her two casual flings of the moment. It would be odd for her not to reflect on how this is not at all how she had once pictured becoming a mother.
I watched the episode last night and was happy to see the scene where Dan and Becky share experiences about losing s spouse.
With Roseanne having died it looks like Dan dealing with her death is going to trounce Becky dealing with Mark's death so we will likely never get that episode I wished for.
-
3
-
-
It's sad that Quinn passed away but Mark having died is actually a juicy plot point that writer's would presumably love to sink their teeth into. The effects it had on Becky and the family etc.
Roseanne was the anti Full House. There were few ups and many downs on Roseanne. If the revival had just been about how great everyone was doing, you might as well watch Fuller House.
I think so far the dead Mark plot point has been under utilized and they really only pay it lip service. The original show tackled really serious issues like teen pregnancy and spousal abuse yet somehow slid in moments of comic genius.
Would be nice if they gave us one solid episode devoted to what happened to Mark and the sincere impact it had on Becky. I mean, do we even know how he died yet? I admit I haven't kept up with season 11.
-
6
-
S01.E10: Don’t Shoot the Piano Teacher
in The Conners
That's the whole problem with the revival.
Darlene and Becky in the original were like the Odd Couple. They were divergent personalities who clashed. TV shows are premised on conflict. No conflict, no comedy.
In the revival they are essentially the same character. Both wise ass trailer trash. It's like watching Two Broke Girls.
Since there'd be no show if Darlene didn't move back to Lanford, make her the unsuccessful. Now turn the tables and make Becky successfull. Still have her single with no family because of the Mark baggage. Successful but not too successful. Like a dental hygenist. She still acts like the high school beauty queen but doesn't know there's no floor under like Will E Coyote. Becky could score off Darlene being washed out and Darlene could score off Becky for being a blonde bimbette.
You could even keep the Emilio story. Miss Priss Becky queen gets knocked up by an illegal.
Whitney Cummings, you have my phone number.