Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

S06.E03: Moms And Rats

DanaK

By DanaK
in The Conners

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

Browncoat

Browncoat

2 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

I don't blame Beverly one bit for not wanting to be confined to her home, especially if she's feeling good. But yeah, I'd be a bit wary of the whole train thing, too. 

At least Jackie's tracking her phone, I guess?  Assuming Bev doesn't misplace the phone, of course.  I get it, too, Bev's not wanting to be confined, but even in her moments of clarity, she really can't take care of herself appropriately.  And what will she do when her meds run out?  

They should have ended this show last season.

  • Like 6
txhorns79

txhorns79

28 minutes ago, Browncoat said:

At least Jackie's tracking her phone, I guess?  Assuming Bev doesn't misplace the phone, of course.  I get it, too, Bev's not wanting to be confined, but even in her moments of clarity, she really can't take care of herself appropriately.  And what will she do when her meds run out?  

The whole thing was weird.  There were scenes where it felt like they were filming Estelle Parsons at some different point in time from the main scene.  Honestly, I thought it was going to be something like Bev and Jackie have a nice day, and Bev passes away.  I really wasn't expecting that they'd just send the character off on a train by herself.  At least the characters on the show seemed suitably horrified this had happened.   

  • Like 7
  • Useful 1
snarkylady

snarkylady

The rat story was stupid and should never have made it into the script. A complete waste from my perspective. The chickens were fine but the Golden Girls did something similar years ago. That leaves me with Beverly and I enjoyed that part of the show today. I thought it was a very nice goodbye to Estelle Parsons assuming that that’s really what it was. I don’t know if they have plans to bring her back yet again, but I felt they were saying goodbye to her, and she was saying goodbye to Jackie and the show. If they have the character die I assume it will be off screen.

  • Like 7
OLynn33

OLynn33

39 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

The whole thing was weird.  There were scenes where it felt like they were filming Estelle Parsons at some different point in time from the main scene

Yes. I think they shot some of her isos separately and used a standin for Jackie's closeups at the train. Agree with comments up thread. Really well done part of this episode. 

I laughed at the Peter Tork comment from Ben. That was FUNNY.

 

4 minutes ago, snarkylady said:

The chickens were fine but the Golden Girls did something similar years ago. 

Didn't really understand the chicken thing but I knew I had seen it before.

 

 

  • Like 4
ItCouldBeWorse

ItCouldBeWorse

1 hour ago, Browncoat said:

And what will she do when her meds run out?  

She has access to experimental meds because she's part of a study. But I guess she'll be dropped for non-cooperation, which also means her results won't help others. Her CC is likely near its maximum, too, so what will she do for money?

And now her caretaker is unemployed with 2 new dogs.

  • Like 3
kitkat343

kitkat343

After so many stupid, poorly written character changes that made absolutely no sense and didn't enhance the show (Jackie's character assassination was the worst example) it was nice to see the writers give Estelle Parsons a positive character change that actually made sense.  A viewer could realistically believe that a person facing their own mortality would evaluate their life and acknowledge their mistakes.  I was glad to see Jackie and her mother have at least one happy scene together and that Jackie will have something to hold onto when the inevitable happens.  And it is nice that she left a positive legacy for her entire family - helping the Conners successfully run a grift is like other families celebrating Christmas together.  

 

  • Like 9
  • LOL 1
  • Love 1
Yeah No

Yeah No

12 hours ago, Browncoat said:

At least Jackie's tracking her phone, I guess?  Assuming Bev doesn't misplace the phone, of course.  I get it, too, Bev's not wanting to be confined, but even in her moments of clarity, she really can't take care of herself appropriately.  And what will she do when her meds run out?  

Exactly.  The issue is how will she get her meds. now?  Is she able to get them from whatever pharmacy she happens to be near at the time?  Is it even possible to get experimental meds. from a pharmacy?  She probably needs to get them from the study itself and not being near it what then?  And if she runs out and doesn't get more before her positive effects wear off (or if they wear off eventually anyway - remember this is a trial study) will she even remember to get more or get help?

Jackie may regret letting her go so easily.  Or Bev may actually realize she needs to be home and around her family and come home.  Either that or they'll make this her "send off" by making her die while she's away "on her own terms".  That may seem noble and good for her but not for her family.  It's a selfish and short-sighted act in my opinion.

8 hours ago, kitkat343 said:

After so many stupid, poorly written character changes that made absolutely no sense and didn't enhance the show (Jackie's character assassination was the worst example) it was nice to see the writers give Estelle Parsons a positive character change that actually made sense.  A viewer could realistically believe that a person facing their own mortality would evaluate their life and acknowledge their mistakes.  I was glad to see Jackie and her mother have at least one happy scene together and that Jackie will have something to hold onto when the inevitable happens.  And it is nice that she left a positive legacy for her entire family - helping the Conners successfully run a grift is like other families celebrating Christmas together.  

I can agree with you only up to a point - the point where Bev gets on the train.  That was not using her better sense in my opinion, and I'm not buying into the idea that this is some kind of wisdom she has now about "dying with dignity and on her own terms".  You don't reconcile with your semi-estranged daughter and then do something that irresponsible/selfish.  It cancels any positive effect of that right out.

  • Like 6
bunnyface

bunnyface

9 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

I can agree with you only up to a point - the point where Bev gets on the train.  That was not using her better sense in my opinion, and I'm not buying into the idea that this is some kind of wisdom she has now about "dying with dignity and on her own terms".  You don't reconcile with your semi-estranged daughter and then do something that irresponsible/selfish.  It cancels any positive effect of that right out.

And Bev wasn't even going to tell Jackie.  She was just going to get on a train and disappear.  Imagine the havoc that would have caused everyone if Jackie hadn't found her just as she was getting on the train.  That's not good judgement either.

  • Like 9
Chaos Theory

Chaos Theory

(edited)

I think the show just wanted to have “a moment” between Bev and Jackie before you know real life happens.  It was a beautiful moment considering all the iterations of the show have one thing in common and that is Bev never being the mother Roseanne or Jackie wanted/needed.   This was just a “sorry….now I am going to ride off into the sunset” moment between Bev and Jackie.   No need to read too much more into it then that.

Edited by Chaos Theory
  • Like 7
  • Love 2
bamlou

bamlou

13 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

At least the characters on the show seemed suitably horrified this had happened.

Yeah, I'm glad their reaction was more sympathetic than glib. I haven't been a fan of how they re-wrote the family's dynamic with Bev to be so mean-spirited to go for easy jokes, so this was an unexpected more caring response from them, especially when their lazy solution to the credit card fraud earlier in the ep was to take advantage of Bev's senility and pin the charges on her. 

  • Like 7
Lovecat

Lovecat

(edited)
1 hour ago, Yeah No said:

Exactly.  The issue is how will she get her meds. now?  Is she able to get them from whatever pharmacy she happens to be near at the time?  Is it even possible to get experimental meds. from a pharmacy?  She probably needs to get them from the study itself and not being near it what then?  And if she runs out and doesn't get more before her positive effects wear off (or if they wear off eventually anyway - remember this is a trial study) will she even remember to get more or get help?

Ironically, despite having worked in clinical trials for over 25 years, by the time Bev got on the train I had forgotten about her participation in a study!  

Traditionally, study patients needed to be within a reasonable distance of their study site so they could come in for follow-up visits to evaluate efficacy and safety per the study protocol and yes, get re-supplies of their medications.  Commercial pharmacies only dispense marketed medication and only rarely are involved in clinical trials of marketed products for long-term safety or something (patients are given pharmacy cards to pay for their prescriptions as part of participation in the study).  Experimental medications would never be available from your local Walgreens or whatever.  During COVID, FDA did allow study sponsors to switch to Telehealth visits and for study medication to be sent to patients via traceable courier.  The pandemic changed how we do a lot of things, so depending on the study design, it is technically possible that Bev would be able to continue participating...but in reality, a dementia patient who is completely itinerant with no support system would not be a great candidate, and it is not likely that study design would support something like that due to the risk to the patient.

I wasn't paying very close attention, so I had to re-wind at one point because I was like "Hold up. Did she just say she's getting on that train to go off and die somewhere?!??" which she didn't per se, but...  Yikes.  I'm glad Jackie's tracking her, but dread the inevitable "Bev's been found dead in Little Rock" storyline.

Edited by Lovecat
  • Like 5
iMonrey

iMonrey

10 hours ago, kitkat343 said:

it was nice to see the writers give Estelle Parsons a positive character change that actually made sense.  A viewer could realistically believe that a person facing their own mortality would evaluate their life and acknowledge their mistakes.

I don't know, Bev's eleventh hour epiphanies about her attitude towards Dan and Jackie felt like wish fulfillment to me. Crotchety old people don't suddenly realize they're crotchety and apologize to everyone in real life, that only happens in the movies.

1 hour ago, bunnyface said:

And Bev wasn't even going to tell Jackie.  She was just going to get on a train and disappear. 

Actually she was texting her when Jackie found her. Or just about to. Still . . .

This whole episode felt off to me. It did indeed feel like some sort of sendoff for Estelle Parsons, but it was so oddly written I wonder if maybe it was something she suggested herself. 

The B-Plot about Darlene wanting Ben to use humane traps was OK but the end with the chickens was just weird and out of the blue. WTF. Like the whole family wanted to make amends to Darlene by showing her they were serving chickens? Huh?

The only thing I got a kick out of was Darlene having to jump up to hang her coat on the peg in the kitchen.

  • Like 10
Yeah No

Yeah No

3 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

I think the show just wanted to have “a moment” between Bev and Jackie before you know real life happens.  It was a beautiful moment considering all the iterations of the show have one thing in common and that is Bev never being the mother Roseanne or Jackie wanted/needed.   This was just a “sorry….now I am going to ride off into the sunset” moment between Bev and Jackie.   No need to read too much more into it then that.

If I have to turn off that much of my brain to just accept this no matter how stupid and unrealistic it seemed to me, no thanks.

2 hours ago, Lovecat said:

I wasn't paying very close attention, so I had to re-wind at one point because I was like "Hold up. Did she just say she's getting on that train to go off and die somewhere?!??" which she didn't per se, but...  Yikes.  I'm glad Jackie's tracking her, but dread the inevitable "Bev's been found dead in Little Rock" storyline.

At least you woke up enough for your brain to kick in and not just accept it without question, though! 😉

If they wanted to show Bev putting herself out on the ice floe then fine, but I just can't get behind the way they did it as some great wonderful act of closure given how it would likely affect her family if they weren't reduced to cartoon status by now anyway.

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

This whole episode felt off to me. It did indeed feel like some sort of sendoff for Estelle Parsons, but it was so oddly written I wonder if maybe it was something she suggested herself. 

The B-Plot about Darlene wanting Ben to use humane traps was OK but the end with the chickens was just weird and out of the blue. WTF. Like the whole family wanted to make amends to Darlene by showing her they were serving chickens? Huh?

The only thing I got a kick out of was Darlene having to jump up to hang her coat on the peg in the kitchen.

The whole episode, including rats and chickens reminded me more of something absurd you'd see on "Family Guy" than any show that wasn't a cartoon or Python sketch.

  • Like 6
Mittengirl

Mittengirl

Darlene made the stupid choice to quit her office job to go work at a food service facility that serves meat and she expects sympathy?  Oh, hell no!  
 

And the “joke” about Beverly Rose eating “raisins” off the floor… For all those idiots know, that rat could have consumed poison put out by a neighbor who doesn’t care about rat health.  

  • Like 6
  • Applause 2
Chaos Theory

Chaos Theory

(edited)

I REALLY want to like this show but I think it falls into the category of tv I don’t like.    Zero sum shows.  Those shows stuck in their own VERY limited premise.   In this case it’s generational poverty.   No one can get ahead.  Darlene the vegan has to take a job in a meat plant because she is sooooo desperate for a job and becomes obsessed with saving the life of the rat living in her house.     The entire situation now is about hopelessness and I just don’t find comedy in that.   Now as a drama……

I liked the original because although Roseanne and Dan were terrible with their money the show ended with a shred of hope that even though both her daughters made mistakes they were working their way out.    The new iteration has Darlene’s kids not even having that shred of hope.   
 

I got tired of Shameless for the same thing and that was a drama.   Why would I like it in a comedy?  

 

 

Edited by Chaos Theory
  • Like 3
StaceyNotStacie

StaceyNotStacie

I was half expecting Jackie to get a phone call at the end telling her that Bev had a heart attack on the train. 
 

As crazy as it was, I was glad that Jackie got a nice moment with her mother. Other than her complementing her about her parenting in the original series (which was probably retconned), Jackie has never really received any praise from her mother. 

  • Like 2
Yeah No

Yeah No

2 hours ago, Rocknrollzombie said:

So how many here are still watching it because they want to and how many hate watch it or your brain shuts off just to not remember the bad writing? 

I'm half hate watching and half watching just to see the actors because all of them are great and comforting to see on my screen again, despite the bad writing.

2 hours ago, Mittengirl said:

Darlene made the stupid choice to quit her office job to go work at a food service facility that serves meat and she expects sympathy?  Oh, hell no!  

I knew a woman that did that back in the '80s.  She had 2 kids to put through college.  It was well worth it for her AND them.  One became a doctor and the other a lawyer.

I never had kids or I would have done the same for them in a heartbeat.

I worked in college admissions for several years and was underpaid but it paid for my grad. school education.  And thank goodness because I had to take out student loans to pay my own undergrad. tuition.

  • Like 2
emmyG

emmyG

3 hours ago, Rocknrollzombie said:

So how many here are still watching it because they want to and how many hate watch it or your brain shuts off just to not remember the bad writing? 

would you believe i'm not actually watching the show, just trying to figure out what happens in the episodes by reading everyone else's posts? it's like archeology 😄

  • LOL 5
iMonrey

iMonrey

5 hours ago, Rocknrollzombie said:

So how many here are still watching it because they want to and how many hate watch it or your brain shuts off just to not remember the bad writing? 

I guess I'm nostalgic for the characters from the original Roseanne show, and every now and then I get a good chuckle out of it. But the writing overall is horrible.

4 hours ago, nelroy78 said:

That was to pay for Mark’s tuition so I don’t know if you can call that stupid. She sacrificed a higher paying job for her kid.

We debated this endlessly when it happened. She was making good money with benefits and Mark could have gone to a community college and gotten his required courses out of the way then gone to a university with help from Darlene and student loans. This wasn't their only option but the show acted like he would die if he didn't immediately go to his university of choice and Darlene sacrificed a lot for him. I'm all for a parent putting a child's needs ahead of their own but this was another case where a character deliberately makes a bad financial decision.

  • Like 8
ItCouldBeWorse

ItCouldBeWorse

(edited)
2 hours ago, iMonrey said:

We debated this endlessly when it happened. She was making good money with benefits and Mark could have gone to a community college and gotten his required courses out of the way then gone to a university with help from Darlene and student loans. This wasn't their only option but the show acted like he would die if he didn't immediately go to his university of choice and Darlene sacrificed a lot for him. I'm all for a parent putting a child's needs ahead of their own but this was another case where a character deliberately makes a bad financial decision.

And it doesn't seem to be a particularly good college, just a close college. Even though Mark is not a 1st generation college attendee (although did Darlene say last episode that she never graduated, in which case, perhaps he is?), a kid with top grades and strong activities from a poor family would have not-so-great and better colleges throwing merit scholarships at him in the hopes that he would raise their statistics.  It's not a choice between "get a full scholarship to Harvard" or "pay full price for nearest college to home".  The whole situation is bizarre and completely unrealistic.

Edited by ItCouldBeWorse
  • Like 4
Suzywriter

Suzywriter

22 hours ago, bunnyface said:

Estelle Parsons was definitely reading lines from a cue card over Jackie's shoulder and then in a separate scene.  I'm assuming it's a goodbye also.  Makes me want to go watch Bonnie & Clyde again.

I saw a lot of editing; I suspect there was a different outcome, and it was rewritten last minute, hence the cue cards, stand in and the strained dialogue.

  • Like 2
  • Useful 1
iMonrey

iMonrey

12 hours ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

And it doesn't seem to be a particularly good college, just a close college. Even though Mark is not a 1st generation college attendee (although did Darlene say last episode that she never graduated, in which case, perhaps he is?), a kid with top grades and strong activities from a poor family would have not-so-great and better colleges throwing merit scholarships at him in the hopes that he would raise their statistics.  It's not a choice between "get a full scholarship to Harvard" or "pay full price for nearest college to home".  The whole situation is bizarre and completely unrealistic.

The really frustrating thing about it is that the writing choices seem (at least partly) motivated by keeping the family poor and down-trodden. Darlene can't have a good job with good pay and benefits, it's not funny or formula for the show. She has to be reduced to working as a lunch lady with a baggie on her head because that's funny, hahaha. 

The only two choices they (we) were presented with were either Darlene becomes a lunch lady, or Mark can't go to college. That was it. No other possibilities were even discussed. I think the subject of community college was briefly raised but quickly dismissed as being an inferior and unacceptable choice. 

For the most part, the original Roseanne show explored the plight of blue collar workers without making it look like the reason they were poor was because they made stupid choices. This show, in contrast, seems to really lean into the idea that all these people are poor because they do dumb things. It's insulting and I honestly don't know if the writers truly believe that (which is entirely possible) or if they just think it's funnier that way.

  • Like 7
Yeah No

Yeah No

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

The really frustrating thing about it is that the writing choices seem (at least partly) motivated by keeping the family poor and down-trodden. Darlene can't have a good job with good pay and benefits, it's not funny or formula for the show. She has to be reduced to working as a lunch lady with a baggie on her head because that's funny, hahaha. 

The only two choices they (we) were presented with were either Darlene becomes a lunch lady, or Mark can't go to college. That was it. No other possibilities were even discussed. I think the subject of community college was briefly raised but quickly dismissed as being an inferior and unacceptable choice. 

For the most part, the original Roseanne show explored the plight of blue collar workers without making it look like the reason they were poor was because they made stupid choices. This show, in contrast, seems to really lean into the idea that all these people are poor because they do dumb things. It's insulting and I honestly don't know if the writers truly believe that (which is entirely possible) or if they just think it's funnier that way.

If they think that's funny, they're sadly mistaken.  It feels demeaning to her and unnecessary.  There are many other jobs at universities that pay much better.  I worked in undergrad. Admissions counseling and got good benefits plus free tuition.  Sure it paid less than the same job in the private sector, but it was still worth it for free grad. school.  Someone with her background and experience did not have to accept a low paying job as a "lunch lady".  I am sure there were many other jobs she could have qualified for with ease.  And I agree with you that making it the characters' fault by having them make unnecessarily poor choices is insulting to them, and also vicariously to us as the audience!

  • Like 3
Jillybean

Jillybean

22 hours ago, Rocknrollzombie said:

So how many here are still watching it because they want to and how many hate watch it or your brain shuts off just to not remember the bad writing? 

I'm questioning why I'm still watching. The series finale of Roseanne was really memorable and I dislike this trend of retconning series so that the original actors have steady work again. During this episode in particular, I found myself thinking that the Conners are pretty horrible people. I can't believe they thought it was OK to charge all that stuff to Bev's credit card. It just isn't funny.

  • Like 2
mythoughtis

mythoughtis

(edited)
On 2/22/2024 at 1:26 PM, nelroy78 said:

That was to pay for Mark’s tuition so I don’t know if you can call that stupid. She sacrificed a higher paying job for her kid.

I will call it misguided because surely the job she had just gotten paid a lot more than the cost of Mark’s tuition.  She’d have been better off keeping it and helping Mark with the cost of tuition.   There are several state universities in Illinois  with reasonable tuition.  Becky is obviously either on a scholarship or taking out loans to attend what’s probably the same university as Mark.  As someone else said, Darlene coujd have gotten a higher paying job at the university than the lunch lady. 
 

I’m also going to repeat what I said last week.  The credit card company is not going to eat the cost of all the stuff they bought.  They WILL file a claim against the estate. This family should already know that  from Roseanne’s death.    This storyline was horrible.   It’s not funny to watch a family scam their dementia stricken elder. 
 

In addition, Jackie could be in serious legal trouble for standing there and allowing her mom to get on a train to who knows where.  Her mom who has been diagnosed with dementia who is in a clinical trial for it.  She didn’t suddenly become competent. It is one  thing for her mom to have boarded the train while Jackie was searching for her.  It’s another to support her doing it. She should have told the conductor she would sue the company if they let her on- that way she’d have proof she at least tried to stop her. 
 

Finally - when did Darlene start caring about the lives of rats? 

Edited by mythoughtis
  • Like 1
ams1001

ams1001

55 minutes ago, mythoughtis said:

I will call it misguided because surely the job she had just gotten paid a lot more than the cost of Mark’s tuition.  She’d have been better off keeping it and helping Mark with the cost of tuition.   There are several state universities in Illinois  with reasonable tuition.  Becky is obviously either on a scholarship or taking out loans to attend what’s probably the same university as Mark.  As someone else said, Darlene coujd have gotten a higher paying job at the university than the lunch lady. 

I think someone else mentioned this at the time...it would have made more sense for her keep her decent-salaried job with benefits, set aside some of her salary in a high-yield savings account, have Mark take out a student loan, then help him pay off the loans with the savings after he graduates (and then he can get a job to help pay, too). He might be getting free tuition, but she can't possibly be saving anything on a cafeteria-worker's pay.

  • Like 1
RunningMarket

RunningMarket

2 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

[SNIP] The credit card company is not going to eat the cost of all the stuff they bought. They WILL file a claim against the estate. This family should already know that from Roseanne’s death.

In the previous episode, someone said when Roseanne died, they called the credit card company and they waived any existing debt - which is how they decided to proceed with this hairbrained fraud.

  • Like 1
iMonrey

iMonrey

21 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

As someone else said, Darlene coujd have gotten a higher paying job at the university than the lunch lady. 

Not to defend this idiot plot but the lunch lady job was literally the only open vacancy at the time, because she did ask about other jobs. Again, I just think the writers thought this would be really funny and something they could milk laughs out of. I don't think they either knew or cared how stupid it made Darlene look and what a dumb choice this would be given other options.

  • Like 2
Bastet

Bastet

45 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Not to defend this idiot plot but the lunch lady job was literally the only open vacancy at the time, because she did ask about other jobs.

There was one other, a wildly specific, creepy one -- flushing drains in the cadaver lab.  Which, quite frankly, I'd think would appeal to Darlene more than serving food to a bunch of teenagers/young adults.

I haven't had a chance to watch this one yet, but I suspect I'll be an outlier and like the Bev storyline.  We'll find out.  I'm a little bummed it sounds like this is the last we'll see of Estelle Parsons, but the woman is 96 years old and has well earned retirement if she's not up for it anymore, so I realize that's silly.

  • Like 4
Bastet

Bastet

2 minutes ago, emmyG said:

Considering she destroyed a funeral home in favor of modern white, the Darlene that would have liked a weird job is long forgotten.

I didn't mean for the weird aspect, but that she'd be working alone rather than serving people (although that weird aspect would come in handy to get rid of people when forced to make small talk -- answer "And what do you do?" and watch them find a reason to visit the other side of the room).

  • Like 4
ams1001

ams1001

11 hours ago, emmyG said:

Plenty of vegans have nothing against pets, the anti-pet crusaders are a weird minority afaik. Keeping chickens and taking decent care of them isn't necessarily a problem. Obviously you can't eat the eggs yourself and call yourself vegan but many vegetarians would consider those ethical eggs.

I have a friend who's vegan and had a pet cat. The only meat in his house was her food.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...