Author Topic: Roseanne Reboot ~ Pro Trump ?  (Read 376 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Roseanne Reboot ~ Pro Trump ?
« Reply #30 on: April 03, 2018, 12:37:23 PM »
Lew weighs in....
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/kareem-abdul-jabbar-dont-be-fooled-roseanne-is-tvs-anti-trump-show-1099170

What a horrible article! It proposes that it's anti-Trump because the family is shown struggling and that somehow reflects badly on his administration when Roseanne clearly stated that the reason she (her character) voted for Trump was because of how economically dire things got under Obama. The article ends with a quote from Popper:The goal of an argument shouldn't be victory but progress. What does that even mean?! Does he think a winning argument is an unsuccessful one? Freedom through slavery?

Re: Roseanne Reboot ~ Pro Trump ?
« Reply #31 on: April 04, 2018, 11:30:08 AM »
Girls can wear slacks without looking manish... except for Hillary, of course!!
I may not be able to describe it, but I know it when I see it.... when a female has crossed the dress line into non-feminine, and when, a male has crossed the line into non-masculine. See the PBS shows Wishbone and Odd Squad for examples.

Here, I captured an image for you:



In case that photo is just to challenging for you, it's the boy in the white coat  and the girl on the right that I'm talking about...

Get’m while they’re hot!


Re: Roseanne Reboot ~ Pro Trump ?
« Reply #32 on: April 06, 2018, 08:07:30 AM »
The boy is in a lab coat. Yeah, I agree those shouldn't be used outside a lab. Are you really trying to be the judge of what everyone on this planet should be wearing so you can tell whether they are female or male?

The lab coat wasn't on my radar. The way the boy's hair is styled is what I thought was "girlish".

Re: Roseanne Reboot ~ Pro Trump ?
« Reply #33 on: April 08, 2018, 02:02:18 PM »


How Archie Bunker Forever Changed in the American Sitcom

The return of ABC’s ‘Roseanne’ inspires a reevaluation of television’s history of portraying the working class

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/history-working-class-families-american-sitcom-180968555/

“Roseanne” returns to ABC. The reboot comes at a perfect cultural moment–television comedy is thriving in its second Golden Age, and while recent shows have made strides exploring issues of identity from race to sexuality, the elephant in America’s living rooms, class, has been only spottily addressed in the 20 years that “Roseanne” has been off the air.

From their post-WWII inception, American sitcoms showcased primarily affluent, aspirational, white families; think of the Cleavers on “Leave it to Beaver,” the Andersons on “Father Knows Best,” and the Nelsons on “The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet.” An academic study of 262 situational comedies from 1946-1990 revealed that only 11 percent of programs featured blue-collar characters as heads of household - the most notable were the two “ethnic” comedies that came directly from old radio programs like “The Goldbergs” and “Amos ‘n’ Andy.” In the 1950s and 1960s, the genre was dominated by professional, college-educated protagonists and their impressive, pristine homes. (The only real exception was “The Honeymooners,” which aired in the mid-50s and starred Jackie Gleason as New York City bus driver and would-be domestic batterer Ralph Kramden.)

Re: Roseanne Reboot ~ Pro Trump ?
« Reply #34 on: April 08, 2018, 04:23:38 PM »


How Archie Bunker Forever Changed in the American Sitcom

The return of ABC’s ‘Roseanne’ inspires a reevaluation of television’s history of portraying the working class

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/history-working-class-families-american-sitcom-180968555/

“Roseanne” returns to ABC. The reboot comes at a perfect cultural moment–television comedy is thriving in its second Golden Age, and while recent shows have made strides exploring issues of identity from race to sexuality, the elephant in America’s living rooms, class, has been only spottily addressed in the 20 years that “Roseanne” has been off the air.

From their post-WWII inception, American sitcoms showcased primarily affluent, aspirational, white families; think of the Cleavers on “Leave it to Beaver,” the Andersons on “Father Knows Best,” and the Nelsons on “The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet.” An academic study of 262 situational comedies from 1946-1990 revealed that only 11 percent of programs featured blue-collar characters as heads of household - the most notable were the two “ethnic” comedies that came directly from old radio programs like “The Goldbergs” and “Amos ‘n’ Andy.” In the 1950s and 1960s, the genre was dominated by professional, college-educated protagonists and their impressive, pristine homes. (The only real exception was “The Honeymooners,” which aired in the mid-50s and starred Jackie Gleason as New York City bus driver and would-be domestic batterer Ralph Kramden.)

The premise seems wrong. Think about how many shows featured Westerns or "hillbilly" country folks. Especially in sitcoms? Under, I think it was CBS (?,) who decided they needed to go urban and started the trend away from po-dunk fair. But shows from Andy Griffith to Beverley Hillbillies were some of the most popular and longest running, even in syndication today. Also I always thought "All In The Family" was trying to make fun of the "bigoted workingclass white guy," just as most television today makes fun of the "middle-class white dad."