Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My main complaint is that a series that has always been predicated on comedy is now just so damn maudlin...
To be expected...it wasn't just a comedy it dealt with poverty, politics, sex, teen issues, bills, gossip, job market, drugs, dating... in a pretty realistic way.
My take.
The ratings are in and the decline of The Conners continues--complete with ABC's rose-colored glasses observation that it's still its "top scripted program."
The Conners hit a new low, down .3 in the prized 18-49 demo, from 1.8 to 1.5.. Not only that, ABC lost the evening, coming in last with a .9 for that demographic. NBC led, with 1.6, and CBS came in second, with 1.1.
My main complaint is that a series that has always been predicated on comedy is now just so damn maudlin...
It's depressing. People tune in to laugh, not to see main characters moping around for an entire season--even if it's a truncated season.
And I guess if the character of Roseanne can't be there, they can just keep talking about her, and even imitating her. Yes, something--someone--is missing from this program, and it's pretty transparent that TPTB want it both ways.
Not that the reboot wasn't on a precipitous decline. Former child actors aren't necessarily talented adult actors (setting aside Fishman, who was useless, even in the original), and viewers don't want to be preached to by writers, show runners, and actors (Roseanne, in the reboot) inserting their political opinions into scripts.
Moreover, Dan's still fooling around with his bikes. Really? And mooch/nut Jackie has appeared to have moved right in. There's been no character development in 30 years where Dan is concerned, and Jackie obviously has a screw loose with the perpetual clown faces and weird vocal delivery.
The Conners is a political vehicle for ABC brass, and its two main characters look like a couple of arthritic monkeys, for cripes sake. No wonder viewership is declining.
Status:
"Pickleball-Free American"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,462 posts, read 44,090,617 times
Reputation: 16856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn
To be expected...it wasn't just a comedy it dealt with poverty, politics, sex, teen issues, bills, gossip, job market, drugs, dating... in a pretty realistic way.
My take.
Expected, yes....but not enjoyable, at least the way it's being presented post-Roseanne.
I saw the show for the first time last night and thought it was awful.
At least Roseanne had some real laughs. The canned laughter (which Cannot be a real audience) is annoying too. They all look like they are reading from the boards. Especially Darlene. That's it for me.
The ratings are in and the decline of The Conners continues--complete with ABC's rose-colored glasses observation that it's still its "top scripted program."
The Conners hit a new low, down .3 in the prized 18-49 demo, from 1.8 to 1.5.. Not only that, ABC lost the evening, coming in last with a .9 for that demographic. NBC led, with 1.6, and CBS came in second, with 1.1.
The ratings are in and the decline of The Conners continues--complete with ABC's rose-colored glasses observation that it's still its "top scripted program."
The Conners hit a new low, down .3 in the prized 18-49 demo, from 1.8 to 1.5.. Not only that, ABC lost the evening, coming in last with a .9 for that demographic. NBC led, with 1.6, and CBS came in second, with 1.1.
Technically.. 3rd place.. They beat Fox, Univision and the CW. Sort of like saying you beat PBS in the ratings, but.. Hey.. Accuracy and fairness.
It's still the best show of the night for ABC. I watched The Kids are Alright, and after 2 episodes gave up on it. Blackish.. It shouldn't be on Tuesday nights. That's a decent show, but it's not really a comedy. I think it matches well with Roseanne/Conners.. But calling it a sitcom is a stretch.
But.. We've been talking trajectory. And, they're on par for about a 1.0/5 by episode 10.. And, I just don't think that cuts it.
What will happen is that someone will say that the Conners is killing the night, which I do not believe is the case, but.. It will get the axe because it's the lead in. Not that the other shows won't get axed as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty
It's depressing. People tune in to laugh, not to see main characters moping around for an entire season--even if it's a truncated season.
And I guess if the character of Roseanne can't be there, they can just keep talking about her, and even imitating her. Yes, something--someone--is missing from this program, and it's pretty transparent that TPTB want it both ways.
Not that the reboot wasn't on a precipitous decline. Former child actors aren't necessarily talented adult actors (setting aside Fishman, who was useless, even in the original), and viewers don't want to be preached to by writers, show runners, and actors (Roseanne, in the reboot) inserting their political opinions into scripts.
Moreover, Dan's still fooling around with his bikes. Really? And mooch/nut Jackie has appeared to have moved right in. There's been no character development in 30 years where Dan is concerned, and Jackie obviously has a screw loose with the perpetual clown faces and weird vocal delivery.
The Conners is a political vehicle for ABC brass, and its two main characters look like a couple of arthritic monkeys, for cripes sake. No wonder viewership is declining.
Fair. It's also like they're putting things in just to needle Roseanne. Writers/producers are very petty and it shows. Personally, I think Goodman and Metcalf are the only reasons to watch the show.. And last night was a poor vehicle, at least for Goodman. In fact.. He's basically come out and said that he doesn't agree with what they did to Roseanne.. I think the only reason he's there is so that the other actors can make some money. He doesn't need this work. He's probably doing it to help them and would have been just as happy to let things die. I think that's coming through in his performances. He said he thought Dan would be mopey because Roseanne was dead? Perhaps Dan is mopey because John is mopey that he's doing the show without his friend.
To your point about them wanting it both ways.. I just looked at the upcoming episodes.. First, the episode on 11/27 is entitled "One Flew Over the Conners' Nest" and.. It looks interesting because of who is directing it.. Fred Savage. That's kinda mind blowing.. Fred Savage was starring in his own sitcom at 10 years old when Roseanne was in its first run.
The second is scheduled for 12/11.. "O Sister, Where Art Thou?".. Probably going to deal with Jackie and her mother, but.. Again, just calling back to Roseanne. Which.. Is understandable, somewhat, but if you're trying to say this is a new show..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconographer
Most of the episode had to do with Dan struggling with his grief. Completely unfunny.
It was. The whole scene at the support group was just weird. I should mention.. Anyone notice that they were talking about Darlene waking them up for church that it was 7 in the morning and Becky was popping open a beer?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, something--someone--is missing from this program, and it's pretty transparent that TPTB want it both ways.
