Roseanne Barr off the air

If I stopped watching all the TV and films that I liked because someone involved was an *******, I wouldn't have much left.

After Charlie Sheen began hobnobbing with the Loose Change crowd, I deliberately avoided anything associated with him as a form of protest. Then I discovered Two and a Half Men in reruns, which I had never seen before and thought he was funny as hell.

I have never watched Barr’s original show nor the new one, but I might someday and I might enjoy it too. As for her, some people handle social media as well as a six year old firing an assault rifle. Best to avoid it.
 
After Charlie Sheen began hobnobbing with the Loose Change crowd, I deliberately avoided anything associated with him as a form of protest. Then I discovered Two and a Half Men in reruns, which I had never seen before and thought he was funny as hell.

I have never watched Barr’s original show nor the new one, but I might someday and I might enjoy it too. As for her, some people handle social media as well as a six year old firing an assault rifle. Best to avoid it.

Weirdly, my willingness to watch something seems less effected by immoral acts than politics. I would have less a problem watching something by Woody Allen or Polanski than Barr. But that may be the putativr quality of the work?
 
Weirdly, my willingness to watch something seems less effected by immoral acts than politics. I would have less a problem watching something by Woody Allen or Polanski than Barr. But that may be the putativr quality of the work?
Personally I watched Roseanne originally and didn't mind it. But it just seemed to turn into a one joke thing with her role so got boring. The husband was better.

I have seen Woody Allen movies without even thinking about the dude outside the movie. But geezes they were tediously boring to me.

Personal preference thing I think
 
All she had to do here to keep the millions of dollars and the adulation was nothing.
This... So much...

Actors perform a job just like everyone else. I don't ask my mailman or my waiter about their political opinion and I don't care what a certain actor thinks either.


And even for them, it more often than not backfires when they try to get into politics in the first place. They will always lose support from the other side.


So why the heck not just keep your trap shut?
 
Yeah, I watch sitcoms for the great acting.

Sitcoms are to acting as military music is to music.

Believe it or not, a lot sitcoms have dealt with a lot of social issues and are more drama than comedy.

To stay somewhat on topic, Roseanne has dealt with a lot of things including issues of abuse and almost all of them were highly memorable and commended for their acting.

And seriously do people think that Jim Parsons is anything like Sheldon Cooper?

Stand-ups tend to play exaggerated versions of themselves. Roseanne Barr plays a character named Rosanne. Tim Allen plays Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor. Jerry Seinfeld is... Jerry Seinfeld (and by far the worst regular on his TV show). Hell, comedians often SAY they're not good actors.

Stories can compensate for dramatic moments that do not hit. But when a funny scene isn't funny... it's dead in the water.
Yes and no. Comedians usually opt for characters with their names because you want to push the brand forward.

If you started off as an actor with multiple parts in multiple movies\plays and people recognize you, then you would usually opt to use a character name.

Candice Bergen isn't Murphy Brown.

But when you're talking about a stand up comedian who gets his own show, sitcom or otherwise, than you want to push them as who they are for the brand recognition. There is no difference between Seinfeld and the Jim Jefferis show in that regard.

Weirdly, my willingness to watch something seems less effected by immoral acts than politics. I would have less a problem watching something by Woody Allen or Polanski than Barr. But that may be the putativr quality of the work?
The only way to answer that question is if you have 2 people you value on equal footing than discover what each one did.

Personally I would wager that it's actually the politics that bother you. In a sense, your political views are who you are, not something that you did.

When it comes to criminal behavior, we already recognize that there is a system of punishment in place. You robbed someone? Go to jail for so and so years and you're done.

But your opinions? It's something that you still hold and it's free speech that you can't (and shouldn't) be sanctioned for. So it's up to us to shun you.
 
Well it's true that he did go around with a Nazi to examine and seize Jewish property. He was a kid at the time and didn't really have much of a choice.


According to Wikipedia, he merely accompanied "an official of the collaborationist Hungarian government's Ministry of Agriculture," who was pretending to be his father:

Soros was 13 years old in March 1944 when Nazi Germany occupied Hungary. Jewish children were barred from attending school by the Nazis, and Soros and the other schoolchildren were made to report to the Judenrat ("Jewish Council") which had been established during the occupation. Soros later described this time to writer Michael Lewis: "The Jewish Council asked the little kids to hand out the deportation notices. I was told to go to the Jewish Council. And there I was given these small slips of paper.... I took this piece of paper to my father. He instantly recognized it. This was a list of Hungarian Jewish lawyers. He said, "You deliver the slips of paper and tell the people that if they report they will be deported."

Soros did not return to that job; his family purchased documents to say that they were Christians, thereby allowing them to survive the war. Later that year at age 14, Soros posed as the Christian godson of an official of the collaborationist Hungarian government's Ministry of Agriculture, who himself had a Jewish wife in hiding. On one occasion, rather than leave the 14 year old alone, the official took Soros with him while he inventoried a rich Jewish family's estate, though Soros did not take part. Tivadar not only saved his immediate family but also many other Hungarian Jews, and George would later write that 1944 had been "the happiest [year] of his life," for it had given him the opportunity to witness his father's heroism.
Wikipedia
 
I think it helps to keep in mind that the TV show and Roseanne Barr are two different things.
That's not exactly true when it comes to Roseann. She always insisted that the show reflects her personally.

For example, in the show her character gets pregnant and they say it's going to be a girl. Then in real life she had a boy and they changed the show because of it. There were a lot of other issues where production went to heads with her and she insisted that things should be based on her life.

None of the writers and few (perhaps only one) of the actors were trying to make statements in support of bigotry or intolerance. Quite the opposite.

Roseanne put her personal opinions out in front of the show's message, and (consider the show's title) they have become inextricably entangled, but they are not and never were the same thing.
Again, in Roseann's case it's more than that.
It's not just the show's title that makes it all about her. If it were, they could have just kicked her out and rebrand it as "The Connors" (See : Hogan Family for precedence)

However, Roseanne is what made the show what it is - like it or not.
The cast was great (still is), but she was fighting production left and right on everything for better or worst.

Everything had to go by her approval and anything that she didn't like she fought tooth and nail.
 
That's not exactly true when it comes to Roseann. She always insisted that the show reflects her personally.
Tbf

She was only did that from when she went for the "created by" credit and the cash that came with it when it was going to someone else
 
Last edited:
Apparently the right wing echo-chamber is all a flutter with tu quoques, everything anti-white supremacist and anti-Trump uttered by comedians is being shared in defense of Roseanne's racist Tweet.


And she's spent the night retweeting their defenses of her, along with conspiracy theorists suggesting that Valerie Jarrett may be implicated in the coming purge of satanic ritual abuse pedophiles from positions of power worldwide.
So much for leaving Twitter.
 
Tbf

She was only did that from when she went for the "created by" credit and the cash that came with it when it was going to someone else

I don't know, she was always an egomaniac and there were story of her being a tyranical monster (for better or worst) from the very begining of the show. Even the title of the show was something of a dispute.

I actually am willing to believe she was the biggest force behind the show, which gives her both credit and blame for all its worth.
 
Had the name not been used, the convo would have me believe you were talking about Rosie O'Donnell. I guess it's a bit potatoe-potato?
 
I'm not saying zero coverage, I'm saying disproportionate coverage based on importance.

Just after my post though, Chris Hayes on MSNBC covered both stories and they have a special town hall on racism.

worth pointing out that that last one wasn't thrown together all of a sudden- it was timed to be on the same day as the Starbucks closing for training, and Roseanne just happened to have jumped up to make an example out of herself.
 
And the immigrant children story. I agree, the mainstream news media's for profit business model/news as a commodity sucks.

That one's a bit more complex, particularly since it's not a single US administration...and it honestly was getting a lot of coverage.
 
Maybe her style is partly the result of frontal lobe damage -- impulsiveness, disinhibition?

Wiki

At 16, Barr was hit by a car; the incident left her with a traumatic brain injury.[8] Her behavior changed so radically that she was institutionalized for eight months at Utah State Hospital.[10] While institutionalized she had a baby, which she put up for adoption.[11]


I don't really care, but I've always had an uneasy feeling watching her that she's, well, a little "frontal".
 
Believe it or not, a lot sitcoms have dealt with a lot of social issues and are more drama than comedy.

To stay somewhat on topic, Roseanne has dealt with a lot of things including issues of abuse and almost all of them were highly memorable and commended for their acting.

And seriously do people think that Jim Parsons is anything like Sheldon Cooper?


Yes and no. Comedians usually opt for characters with their names because you want to push the brand forward.

If you started off as an actor with multiple parts in multiple movies\plays and people recognize you, then you would usually opt to use a character name.

Candice Bergen isn't Murphy Brown.

But when you're talking about a stand up comedian who gets his own show, sitcom or otherwise, than you want to push them as who they are for the brand recognition. There is no difference between Seinfeld and the Jim Jefferis show in that regard.


The only way to answer that question is if you have 2 people you value on equal footing than discover what each one did.

Personally I would wager that it's actually the politics that bother you. In a sense, your political views are who you are, not something that you did.

When it comes to criminal behavior, we already recognize that there is a system of punishment in place. You robbed someone? Go to jail for so and so years and you're done.

But your opinions? It's something that you still hold and it's free speech that you can't (and shouldn't) be sanctioned for. So it's up to us to shun you.
Yes. yes indeedy!!!
 
Barr is sending out more tweets now. She says that she was on Ambien when she wrote the abuse. Also she says she thought that Jarrett was white.
 

Back
Top Bottom