It Was ‘Roseanne’ vs. ‘Roseanne,’ in a Polarizing Revival

I'd like to know who Dan voted for. A Bernie write-in perhaps?

I loved the old Rosanne shows. They were very funny and yet were able to discuss social issues which were important. The new show is not funny. I've watched every episode and although I can't put my finger on it, something is missing. Every week I've waited for the 'old' Rosanne to resurface and she hasn't. Just to be sure, I've rewatched several of the old Rosanne's and it's crystal clear that something is missing from the reboot. Sometimes these things work, sometimes they don't. Poldark for one, on PBS, really did work as they kept the characters and stories true. Sorry Rosanne.

This is an entertaining show which showcases real issues in everyday people's lives. This piece expresses views that make people like Kanye West and some of us Democrats want to flee the party. When you police every show, every celebrity's politics and views, it is offensive.

This show is clever and very funny

Here's the thing with "Roseanne" - for all it's foibles regarding Barr, there really isn't a show like it. Take it from this liberal mom, whose 11 year old survives in part on a TV diet of Nickelodeon and Disney characters who live in houses they should in no way afford, and go to public schools with resources that in no way exist in the United States. It is truly a bubble. "Roseanne" at least attempts to tell some kind of truth about the complexity of our country, and the families that have to somehow just muddle through with a little humor. Liberals have to get over their purity complex. There is so much to learn from the imperfect. Perfection literally does not exist anyway.

So it takes a literal disaster in order for there to be enough for everyone? Echoes of the country rebuilding after WW2. Sounds like food for thought and not an easy wrap-up at all.

This has nothing to do with the real FEMA.

This review willfully misinterprets the denouement of the Roseanne series’ finale to bash an actress because of her politics or the author is just dumb. The ending wasn’t about President Trump being a hero for calling a federal emergency it was an ironic comment on the fact that people who are struggling only get help from their government when a disaster nearly destroys everything they have. Seen in this light the ending was a piece of astute political commentary. Sadly, this review represents Liberals’ complete inability to listen to the people who voted for Trump. Roseanne Barr has given them a voice and portrayed them as real people instead of stereotypical racists and misogynists. A smarter critic would have seen what Ms. Barr was trying to do instead of just going after an actress whose politics they didn’t agree with. It would be nice if Liberals would stop telling people how to live and try to find out how they actually are living. Worse than the deafness of this piece is the idea that the author can dismiss an artist’s work because they don’t approve of their politics or that their politics matter, that’s just pure McCarthyism. Politics have no place in reviews of TV, movies or books. Worst of all I shouldn’t have to point any of this out to the Times. The editors should have known and not run this clueless, pandering hit piece.

Never made through the first episode. Archie Bunker Rosanne ain’t. Who writes this stuff?

I try not to support vile, crazy people. I won't be watching.

oh, darn. From the phrasing of the headline I had hoped that this trash tv show had been ax'ed already!

Here’s another theory; this show is actually aimed at the Trump base with the intention of (1) seeming to endorse their prejudices and ignorance and then (2) subtly undermining that ignorance and prejudice by showing that, yes, even Muslims with darker skin can be regular folks and, wow, without European-style national health insurance, look how screwed hard-working people can be, etc. What looks like insufferable condescension from the liberal side may actually be understated subversion from the Tea Party side. The use of the word “illegals” in the last episode is also worthy of note; one may not like it (I don’t), but it is used by the people depicted and if you want a trace of verisimilitude, then it is an appropriate usage. Finally, Lincoln said that if you want to persuade someone about something, first you must convince them that you are their sincere friend; I think that that’s what this show is trying to do.

The show is funny, well-written, and the performers are in tune with their characters. Let's not burden it with overmuch angst.

The show had real potential to break new ground, but it hasn't -- for so many reasons. The lines are trite -- acting is awful. I shut it off half way through the other night.

Jobs are important and so is national security. Do Roseanne and the Connors care that their President is being investigated, says demeaning things about anybody who isn’t white or rich and threatens nearly everyone who isn’t an American? Even on TV those are not the things that make America great.

I have a crackpot theory about Roseanne Barr and I'm sticking to it: Since Roseanne has identified herself as a socialist, it's hard for me to believe that in her heart of hearts she is a true blue Trump supporter. Instead, I think she's come to the astute realization that in order to reach Trump voters the one thing she must do FIRST is identify herself as one of them. Anything short of that, she understands, and they would close their ears to anything she has to say. Her show is, in other words, a sort of Trojan horse: to reach Trump voters she must gently, ever so gently, coax them toward greater enlightenment, all without ever scolding them, mocking them, or making them feel in any way inferior. As a diehard liberal I've enjoyed the show and think that it's by far more liberal in its bent than it is Trump-supporting. I think Roseanne has hit on something that Democrats may want to emulate for the midterms. Yes, I know it's a hard pill to swallow (it is for me) but it might be the only way to victory in November. Trump supporters are digging in, they're not opening up. Cajole, cajole, cajole seems to be the name of the game.

Mr. P. You do know that Roseanne, much as all of us, have multiple dimensions that comprise our beliefs, actions and thoughts. To think that, even you, do not have biases and ignorance is a fallacy. Each one of sees truth through the prism of our own paradigm which is the result of our own values and experiences. Please do not criticize the character for not fitting into your stereotypical mold of a one-dimensional Trump supporter. That mold is as racist and hack-need as any other racist stereotype.

I wish the NY Times and its critics would get off the Roseanne merry-go-round and try to reflect on some of the better-written, better-acted television fare (sparse as it is). People playing out a game about which sitcom celebrity would have voted for Trump? What people? This article is insulting to a Times audience.

I would be interested in watching a show about an American family that voted for Trump to try to understand their decision - but if you listen to Rosanne Barr speak, she's just another Fox New convert who has gone down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole. What is so frustrating is that so many working class whites (like the fictional Connor family) vote against their own economic interests when they vote for republicans who are only interesting in cutting taxes for the rich, breaking up unions to keep wages down as a gift to their donors, and cutting social services like schools and medical care.

I found the new season to be smart and funny. I felt it was in keeping with the best of the early years by presenting the problems everyday people are facing and and then showing how the family sticks together through love and laughter. I did not vote for Trump and am not a supporter of his, but I am a Midwesterner and found the conflict between Jackie and Roseanne very believable. I'm glad the show had the guts to tackle this issue in an entertaining way.

Wow, this goes a long way to criticize what this liberal found to be an entertaining show. Does it bother me that she voted for Trump? Yes. But that wasn’t the focus of he entire season. And of course it was quick to summarize big issues, it’s a half hour comedy. Lighten up.

I liked the first few seasons of the original run. The characters and storylines were authentic, and there was an easy confidence, as if despite their challenges they still had the promise of youth. In the reboot, John Goodman looks like an entirely different person—the gleam in his eye, the mischief and his power, supplied by his bulk for sure but also by his swagger—are gone. Roseanne also has lost the luster and spunk of a domestic goddess. So maybe it’s their age, maybe it’s the writing that goes for the punchline and big guffaw that leaves the series wanting. Another perspective on the critic’s final thought in this piece: Roseanne packed a lot of big topical issues in eight episodes probably because she didn’t know if the series would be picked up for a full season. Now that it has, I’m sure we’ll see these issues treated with more nuance.

I've been watching this "revival." I've always been a fan of the cast members. Politics aside - the writing is just not as good as it was when the series originally aired. The one highlight was Johnny Galecki showing up a few episodes ago.