If they make a new show with Roseanne's cast and writers, but remove Roseanne, would you watch it? Roseanne recently got into trouble over social media. It was a very high rated show, and was scheduled to have another season produced.
Would you even miss Roseanne?
Never really watched it in the first place.
Mostly because I was a kid and not that interested.
Not sure if I would watch a total reboot either.
A truly prophetic sig...
At 6/5/18 02:40 PM, Painbringer wrote: Never really watched it in the first place.
Mostly because I was a kid and not that interested.
It was an okay show back in the day. Since it has returned, the ratings were very high. I really enjoyed the show, and it sucks how it was cancelled.
Not sure if I would watch a total reboot either.
It would not be a total reboot, just get rid of Roseanne. Like she moved away or something. The rest of the cast would still be there. Maybe Dan would become the star?
At 6/5/18 02:47 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: It would not be a total reboot, just get rid of Roseanne. Like she moved away or something. The rest of the cast would still be there. Maybe Dan would become the star?
They would most likely kill off her character and start the next episode/season with the aftermath and/or funeral.
Kinda like they did with Charlie Sheen in Two and a Half Men.
A truly prophetic sig...
At 6/5/18 02:56 PM, MrPercie wrote: well it would have been better to reboot it with roseanne being played by a chimp in a wig
Roseanne being played by a monkey?
It would make more sense if she had a monkey butler. https://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1430527#bbspost26162157_post_text
the new show was pretty decent, and barely political in most episodes. those that hate the show for it's politics, are likely just filled with hate in general. about a month ago, abc was catching some flack for john goodman doing voice over adverts for their other programming, which really just showed those people's ignorance about goodman.
i wouldn't watch a reboot, it's not roseanne without roseanne.
given her history of controversial statements, this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, it was only a matter of time.
i always thought valarie jarrett looked like a bird.
"some people who believe they're smart do nothing but talk incessantly. if they didn't, how else would they let you know how smart they are?"
At 6/5/18 02:30 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: If they make a new show with Roseanne's cast and writers, but remove Roseanne, would you watch it? Roseanne recently got into trouble over social media. It was a very high rated show, and was scheduled to have another season produced.
Would you even miss Roseanne?
Never watched the show. But this morning on the radio I heard about her.
You got dat?
At 6/5/18 03:00 PM, Painbringer wrote:At 6/5/18 02:47 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: It would not be a total reboot, just get rid of Roseanne. Like she moved away or something. The rest of the cast would still be there. Maybe Dan would become the star?They would most likely kill off her character and start the next episode/season with the aftermath and/or funeral.
Kinda like they did with Charlie Sheen in Two and a Half Men.
That could work. Do you think they would make fun of her, Like they did with Charlie on Two and a Half Men? Coming back as an old woman was just wacky.
At 6/5/18 07:03 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: That could work. Do you think they would make fun of her, Like they did with Charlie on Two and a Half Men? Coming back as an old woman was just wacky.
They might try to make her tell the audience why racist comments are not okay - Something they tried to do with Sheen about why drugs are bad.
A truly prophetic sig...
At 6/5/18 02:40 PM, Painbringer wrote: Never really watched it in the first place.
Mostly because I was a kid and not that interested.
Not sure if I would watch a total reboot either.
Married With Children was the better dysfunctional white trash family sitcom from that time period (80s and 90s) anyway.
You could replace Rosanne with just any random loud-mouthed fat woman who has an exceptionally annoying voice. She was always just the generic annoying-voiced strongly-opinionated fat woman who never shuts up. So a Rosanne spinoff could have a casting call and just take whichever woman is fattest and with the most annoying voice and bonus points if they're super annoying and have stupid opinions.
At 6/5/18 04:19 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: never watched it
idk what it is
since i've survived this long without "roseanne" in my life i'll assume i'm not missing anything
Maybe you were too young? It was a show in the 80s and 90s. She's basically as I described above. It was a show about a white trash family. Your assumption is correct though. It was better to play outside or watch some other show or go do your homework rather than watch Rosanne back in the day.
This social justice bullshit is fucking retarded and nobodys life should be ruined by expressing their opinions she didnt hurt anybody.
She made a planet of the apes joke who the fuck cares.
Thats like bitching about the black comedians ripping on white folk.
It could work. 8 Simple Rules went on for 5 more seasons after the death of John Ritter. It dealt with the family members coping with his death.
Considering how Roseanne was the center of the show (like John Ritter's character was), they could take that in several different directions.
it is likely to happen, maybe.
since they renewed it for a 2nd season before the cancellation, according to the SAG, the actors are entitled to at least 7 episodes worth of paychecks.
"some people who believe they're smart do nothing but talk incessantly. if they didn't, how else would they let you know how smart they are?"
Can't happen now, the name is too strongly associated with controversy.
Besides, it would probably look something like this
I'll probably read this in ten minutes and facepalm. - RageVI
At 6/5/18 07:09 PM, Painbringer wrote:At 6/5/18 07:03 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: That could work. Do you think they would make fun of her, Like they did with Charlie on Two and a Half Men? Coming back as an old woman was just wacky.They might try to make her tell the audience why racist comments are not okay - Something they tried to do with Sheen about why drugs are bad.
That is a good point. It is always better to explain why something is bad instead of just firing the person and not addressing the issue.
At 6/5/18 09:52 PM, StatKing wrote: This social justice bullshit is fucking retarded and nobodys life should be ruined by expressing their opinions she didnt hurt anybody.
She lost her job and so did all of the cast and crew.
She made a planet of the apes joke who the fuck cares.
That was an okay movie.
Thats like bitching about the black comedians ripping on white folk.
That happens all the time, but nobody gets in trouble.
At 6/5/18 11:17 PM, FIGMENTUM wrote: Can't happen now, the name is too strongly associated with controversy.
I heard they were going to give it an entirely new name.
At 6/5/18 09:52 PM, StatKing wrote: This social justice bullshit is fucking retarded and nobodys life should be ruined by expressing their opinions she didnt hurt anybody.
She made a planet of the apes joke who the fuck cares.
Thats like bitching about the black comedians ripping on white folk.
So you're assuming people don't like Roseanne because of "social justice bullshit" when many people, including myself, dislike her exclusively because she is loud-mouthed and annoying and has one of the most grating voices?
I really don't know or care what causes she supports or gets behind. I've never liked her show. I find her annoying. There's plenty of people like her IRL if you want your daily dose of loud-mouthed over-opinionated fat woman.
I mean hey, if that "makes" the show for you, by all means watch it, enjoy it, and be entertained. Unlikable annoying woman does not in my opinion make a good comedy show but maybe it's comedy gold to you.
At 6/6/18 05:04 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote:
That was an okay movie.
i think she was referencing the older films, with their ridiculous looking ape people.
"some people who believe they're smart do nothing but talk incessantly. if they didn't, how else would they let you know how smart they are?"
At 6/6/18 08:04 PM, billybobthwarten wrote:At 6/6/18 05:04 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote:That was an okay movie.i think she was referencing the older films, with their ridiculous looking ape people.
Would be funny if the post didnt even have racist implications
At 6/5/18 02:30 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: If they make a new show with Roseanne's cast and writers, but remove Roseanne, would you watch it? Roseanne recently got into trouble over social media. It was a very high rated show, and was scheduled to have another season produced.
Would you even miss Roseanne?
I would not watch it without her. It's not Roseanne without Roseanne. Duh...
At 6/7/18 01:33 AM, Sekhem wrote: boring show headed by a racist, zionist jew
deserves being canceled and roseanne needs to be dropped in a volcano
That's a moronic statement If I ever read one.
At 6/6/18 11:00 PM, StatKing wrote:
Would be funny if the post didnt even have racist implications
i didn't really find her comment humorous, felt a bit like it was reaching. her excuse of being on ambien made sense to me.
a year ago, i bet most people wouldn't have had a clue what valerie jarrett's racial make up was. seems to me, a bit of outrage for the sake of outrage, the woman has a weird face.
"some people who believe they're smart do nothing but talk incessantly. if they didn't, how else would they let you know how smart they are?"
At 6/7/18 09:37 AM, Sekhem wrote:
does that explain away all of her other racist tweets too
is racism just a side-effect of ambien
you're dumber than fucking dirt, dude
since we're just gonna go there.
if you can't follow that i was saying her attempt at a "joke" just didn't make sense, likely because of drugs, you're the idiot here.
"some people who believe they're smart do nothing but talk incessantly. if they didn't, how else would they let you know how smart they are?"
At 6/7/18 09:25 AM, Sekhem wrote:At 6/7/18 09:21 AM, ChancesVoice wrote: That's a moronic statement If I ever read one.do you have a problem with facts, buddy
Firstly, I'm not your "buddy".
Secondly, what you typed are just opinions.
Thirdly, according to popular science, we are all descendants of apes so her statement about that woman was more fact than your above statements. Boom!
At 6/7/18 02:50 PM, ChancesVoice wrote: Thirdly, according to popular science, we are all descendants of apes
Common misconception. According to evolutionary biology, both humans and apes are descendants from a common ancestor. In other words, humans didn't come from apes but rather both humans and apes came from the same lineage.
To make it easier to understand, the ape is your brother not your dad.
At 6/7/18 02:59 PM, NeonSpider wrote:At 6/7/18 02:50 PM, ChancesVoice wrote: Thirdly, according to popular science, we are all descendants of apesCommon misconception. According to evolutionary biology, both humans and apes are descendants from a common
To make it easier to understand, the ape is your brother not your dad.
Well, thanks for bolstering my argument. 😏
At 6/7/18 03:20 PM, ChancesVoice wrote: Well, thanks for bolstering my argument. 😏
When and how the F*CK do we get to use emoticons
At 6/7/18 07:02 PM, S3C wrote:At 6/7/18 03:20 PM, ChancesVoice wrote: Well, thanks for bolstering my argument. 😏When and how the F*CK do we get to use emoticons
😄😅😎
At 6/7/18 07:30 PM, ChancesVoice wrote:At 6/7/18 07:02 PM, S3C wrote:😄😅😎At 6/7/18 03:20 PM, ChancesVoice wrote: Well, thanks for bolstering my argument. 😏When and how the F*CK do we get to use emoticons
share the secret mother f*cker
At 6/7/18 08:12 PM, S3C wrote:At 6/7/18 07:30 PM, ChancesVoice wrote:share the secret mother f*ckerAt 6/7/18 07:02 PM, S3C wrote:😄😅😎At 6/7/18 03:20 PM, ChancesVoice wrote: Well, thanks for bolstering my argument. 😏When and how the F*CK do we get to use emoticons
Dude you are cracking me up! 😂😅😊
