Guest El Chalupacabra Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Of course it is! Middle class white woman are dying! When it was rednecks with meth, or black people with crack the POV is different. Imagine if Roseanne had died of a crack overdose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iceheart Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 As an aside, I live in the rural midwest, and if you really want to use a drug to flag your character as white trash, you'd use meth, not opioids.Meth is everywhere, but so are opioids. Without getting into some long, drawn out political debate about drugs, I suspect ABC chose opioids as a cause of death because when it comes to the drug debate, opioids are what's being talked about the most right now. That was implied in my post, seeing as how we're really only talking about this because opioids were named as a "hillbilly" drug in an early thread post. Roseanne Conner wasn't white trash. No one would believe that Roseanne would develop a meth addiction (even though, I mean, she definitely could have realistically, addiction has nothing to do with income or status). But anyone from any socio-economic bracket can be over-prescribed opioids by a well-meaning doctor, and can end up abusing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 Comparing the crack and opiod epidemics and deciding that the differences are primarily racial ignores major issues, not the least of which is that the death rate from opiods is roughly five times greater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odine Posted November 10, 2018 Share Posted November 10, 2018 As an aside, I live in the rural midwest, and if you really want to use a drug to flag your character as white trash, you'd use meth, not opioids.Meth is everywhere, but so are opioids. Without getting into some long, drawn out political debate about drugs, I suspect ABC chose opioids as a cause of death because when it comes to the drug debate, opioids are what's being talked about the most right now. Roseanne Conner wasn't white trash. Really? Cause growing up as a kid and seeing the show she always seemed that way to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iceheart Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 No, the Conners are working class/blue collar. The whole appeal of the show is that they're the American Every Family (at least in a certain socio-economic bracket). They hold down long-term employment (and if they do find themselves unemployed, it's due to something like outsourcing or downsizing, not because they're unreliable employees or just flat-out don't want to work), are home and car owners, put three meals on the table every day, and are conscientious parents. The humor is in the relatability. The first example of white trash on American TV that comes to mind for me is the Crowder family on Justified, especially characters like Dewey Crowder. If you're familiar with that show (you should be, it's great)... yeah, there are some low-income surface similarities, but that's a whole different lifestyle than what the Conners live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 The Crowder's were hillbillies. White Trash is more like the cast of My Name is Earl. ...not to be confused with the Rednecks of Hazard County. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odine Posted November 12, 2018 Share Posted November 12, 2018 I was more referring to roseannes personality that made her white trash. You can still have plenty of money/ hold down a stable job and still be white trash in my book. But i take your points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeygirl Posted November 14, 2018 Share Posted November 14, 2018 Her character referred to the family being white trash a number of times on the old show. And the old show is back on TV now-it's on really early weekend mornings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeygirl Posted December 6, 2018 Share Posted December 6, 2018 I binged/caught up on this recently and really am loving it. The actors still have some timing issues, it seems-maybe-I don't know enough about TV but they seem a bit slow at times. I'm loving how they're dealing with Roseanne's death; the neighborhood drug pool is so real and the different reactions of all involved seem so accurate to me. (One of my BFF's families is dealing with the loss of their matriarch and tho it wasn't a drug-related death, I'm seeing the same varied reactions in all of them) I ADORE the character of Mark, I love grown-up Geena and Jackie's zeal for the Democratic party is funny to me. Mostly, I think the writing is still better than most sit-coms-they seem to be better able to balance snark and acerbic wit with humor and not leave you feeling compromised for laughing-it never seems to go *too* far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted December 9, 2018 Share Posted December 9, 2018 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quetzalcoatl Posted August 25, 2019 Share Posted August 25, 2019 I haven't seen the show sense its revival, but I watched Rosanne back in the 90's, and I've been really curious about something (just not enough to actually watch the show). How did the revival handle the fact that Dan used to be dead? Or did it just go ignored? In the 1996 series final, it was revealed that Dan didn't actually survive his heart attack, the family never actually won the lottery, and a ton of other stuff that we were led to believe throughout the run of the show never really happened. It was explained that it was all a fictional book that Rosanne had been writing, and had finished in the final. For Dan to be alive in the revival, they clearly had to ignore that last little bit of the 1996 final. Does this mean that the revival is set in the original timeline (the one the 1996 final portrayed as Rosanne's book)? Are the Conners lottery winners in current continuity? Because if the answer is no, then the revival doesn't just ignore the 1996 final but that entire season. Exactly what season of the 90's run does the revival continue from? Just trying to figure out how the revival fits with everything that came before, because so far, it doesn't make much sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted August 25, 2019 Share Posted August 25, 2019 Dan woke up from a dream. Or was it Roseanne? I dont remember, but the death was linked to a dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Posted August 25, 2019 Share Posted August 25, 2019 The last season was the dream, but the reality was that he died. The revival basically ignored the last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts