Jump to content

The Conners (spoilers)


Guest El Chalupacabra
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

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

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

  • 3 weeks later...

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

  • 8 months later...

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

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.