Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: "Roseanne" Reboot Gets Cancelled

  1. #1
    silent magician lv. 4 slush puppie's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    ♥♥♥California♥♥♥
    Posts
    165

    "Roseanne" Reboot Gets Cancelled

    i know this happened a few weeks ago, but does anyone suspect it had more to do with her affiliations with and dissemination of the subterranean alternate Trump News networks and narratives (e.g. QAnon, calling out George Soros), and by extension her attempted subversion of the MSM, than it did with her idiotic "Planet of the Apes" remark?

    also, feel free to follow your own train of thought, etc. regarding this same incident. replies need not be strictly in response to the opening post.
    I used to wonder about that myself. Crazy thing is...it's true. All of it. ---Han Solo

    We must wade through bitter waters before we reach the sweet. ---Dr. Van Helsing

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,570
    I'm not sure why anyone would need another reason to cancel her show than her tweet. Just because racists feel more empowered to speak out now doesn't mean everybody is more accepting of it. Celebrities are public figures. Public perception matters. It comes with the job.

    If ABC cared about her affiliations and what have you, why would they have given her a show in the first place? Firing her over that makes no sense.

  3. #3
    Minister of Love Roger Mexico's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    New World
    Posts
    3,444
    Quote Originally Posted by slush puppie View Post
    i know this happened a few weeks ago, but does anyone suspect it had more to do with her affiliations with and dissemination of the subterranean alternate Trump News networks and narratives (e.g. QAnon, calling out George Soros), and by extension her attempted subversion of the MSM, than it did with her idiotic "Planet of the Apes" remark?
    Well, I don't think so.


    I think she said a really dumb thing publicly that was really embarrassing for her employers (who are a media business, so public image management is sort of everything in their line of work), because yeah, frankly, it did strongly suggest that she probably has a tendency to think about other people in racist ways, whether she's able or willing to consciously acknowledge that about herself or not.


    You know, that show is from way back in like the fucking 1980's. Personally I don't see what the reason could possibly have been for a TV network to suddenly say "Hey, what if we rounded up the cast of that one generic sitcom show we did that was moderately popular 30 years ago and barely anyone even remembers now? That's a great idea, right?"


    Unless the reason they did it was actually the fact that the star of that show had recently come back from relative celebrity retirement and made herself a household name based on her connections to the Trump campaign, and it was specifically that return to the limelight that the network was trying to scrape some easy money out of.


    It just backfired on them because whether or not they were trying to be "edgy" or whatever, everybody is well aware by now of the obvious fact that Trump's main supporter base is chock full of racists.


    It is therefore never a surprise at this point when you find out someone who voted for Trump is a racist. It's not even unreasonable to assume that if someone tells you they voted for Trump, they pretty well might be a racist--statistically, the odds of your assumption turning out to be correct are pretty damn good.

    I don't know how the network people fooled themselves into thinking this wasn't a plausible risk, but here we are.


    They tried to squeeze a few extra dollars off a dim memory from ancient television history by necromancing the acting career of this lady who'd become famous again for the combination of having once been famous already and being dumb enough to vote for the same guy we all knew David Duke and Richard Spencer were voting for.

    Then a very, very predictable thing happened--Old TV Trump Lady went and did something in public that showed the whole country that hey, turns out she's a big fucking racist.


    They stupidly failed to anticipate the very easily anticipated risk of something happening that would make everybody hate the microwaved leftover celebrity they'd impulsively decided to re-invest in and draw a lot of attention to themselves for reinvesting in--so of course now they have to run damage control on the whole thing to cut her loose and contain the damage to their own reputations.



    I don't see how this isn't obviously the most plausible and clearly evident explanation for what they decided to do after the shit hit the fan.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ptah View Post
    No history, no exposition, no anecdote or argument changes the invariant: we are all human beings, and some humans are idiots.

  4. #4
    Global Moderator Polemarch's Avatar
    Type
    ENTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,727
    Quote Originally Posted by starla View Post
    I'm not sure why anyone would need another reason to cancel her show than her tweet. Just because racists feel more empowered to speak out now doesn't mean everybody is more accepting of it. Celebrities are public figures. Public perception matters. It comes with the job.

    If ABC cared about her affiliations and what have you, why would they have given her a show in the first place? Firing her over that makes no sense.
    This is how I see it.

    This isn't a conspiracy between the Rothschilds, the Illuminati, and an international cabal of Jews to suppress the transcendence of the freedom-loving white American.

    It's a television network - a business - that makes money from advertisers, many of whom don't want to their ads to be associated with Roseanne anymore.
    We didn't land on Plymouth Rock. Plymouth Rock landed on us.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Senseye's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,099
    At first I thought you meant the Roseanne-less spin off reboot had been cancelled. Which would have been news to me, but that is not the case.

    I don't think it was anything more than her tasteless remark. She's always been a bit out there with some of her other theories/opinions going back years, so if that was OK going in, I don't think it would have made any difference if she had not got on the wrong side of the p.c. police.

  6. #6
    fluctuating Obfuscate's Avatar
    Type
    iNtP
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    washington... this sometimes changes withought planning...
    Posts
    1,187
    we all knew who she was... cancelling the show was annoying...
    "The vanity of intelligence is that the intelligent man is often more committed to 'one-upping' his opponent than being truthful. When the idea of intelligence, rather than intelligence itself, becomes a staple, there is no wisdom in it."
    Criss Jami

    "When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but creatures of emotion."
    "Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving."
    Dale Carnegie

  7. #7
    Senior Member jyng1's Avatar
    Type
    intp
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    3,903
    Discrimination is so acceptable nowadays... Who knew you'd get discriminated against for discriminating against other people?

  8. #8
    Member Thoth's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    AHJ 2006
    Posts
    940
    Ideology means fuck all in media, unless it makes you money, then you pay lip service so long as it continues to do so.

    Advertisers pull, you cancel the show/story. It's a simple equation with a solution in dollars, not a virtue signal. As others have already stated, Rosanne's social predilections didn't require an Enigma cypher and they've been laid bare for the last twenty years in one form or another, so it's not like Disney (or the advertisers who bought in and made the reboot possible much less than ALL the actors and crew involved) missed the message. They all saw money in an untapped market and took a risk.

  9. #9
    silent magician lv. 4 slush puppie's Avatar
    Type
    INFP
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    ♥♥♥California♥♥♥
    Posts
    165
    yeah, this is all looking pretty parsimonious.

    but just to keep the conversation going...

    Quote Originally Posted by Polemarch View Post
    It's a television network - a business - that makes money from advertisers, many of whom don't want to their ads to be associated with Roseanne anymore.
    sure, but if half the country's on her side, why should they care?

    in other words: follow the money. why do the economic interests appear to favor one ideology over another when their respective markets are ostensibly equal?
    I used to wonder about that myself. Crazy thing is...it's true. All of it. ---Han Solo

    We must wade through bitter waters before we reach the sweet. ---Dr. Van Helsing

  10. #10
    Now we know... Asteroids Champion ACow's Avatar
    Type
    INTP
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,532
    Quote Originally Posted by slush puppie View Post
    yeah, this is all looking pretty parsimonious.

    but just to keep the conversation going...

    sure, but if half the country's on her side... why should they care?when their respective markets are ostensibly equal?
    Is the population of Roseanne fans who can be persuaded into making a marginal purchase greater than the population of not-Roseanne fans who will be persuaded to move away from purchases against companies or brands that support her?

    Because purely mathematically, i'd say the population of Roseanne fans would be far smaller than the population of not-Roseanne fans. So a 1% effect on either would overwhelmingly support choosing the not-roseanne side of the equation, but wasn't really an issue until she decided to air something that would have a material effect on the actions of not-Roseanne fans.

    As for claims of half the country being on her side, given US voter engagement, party support and turnount rates, i don't think either of america's parties can proclaim half the country of their side. When you then take into account the proportion of "republicans" who are then trump supporters as opposed to democrat-deniers, and the proportion of the remainder who are actively-engaged trump supporters , and then the proportion of them who care about and support Roseanne, i imagine we are looking at pretty tiny numbers.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •