Two episodes of ABC's Roseanne Revival reached nearly 18.2 million viewers Tuesday evening and a 5.1 rating among adults aged 18-49. These are not quite peak Walking Dead numbers, but for the revived remnants of a long-deadly television show, it's quite remarkable.
The Roseanne return actually surpassed all expectations improved in the second half-hour and gave Black-ish a big bump on any superficial level – racist, socioeconomic, comedic – could not be more different.
Nobody is going to wait for final dates or see what a second week looks like before I move on to the lessons that Roseanne ABC and the industry should teach.
Of course we are deep in the pilot season Hollywood. Scripts were ordered for piloting. Pilots went into production. Like all parts of the cumbersome, largely antiquated machines, this train is hard to brake and impossible to stop.
Fortunately, the key to take is one that's already brewed into the 201
This is a trend that I've found despicable many times, but the more I think about it, the clearer it gets. There are three types of Reboot or Revival, each of which is cautious on a different level.
There are the shows that started from nothing and were revived to continue to be nothing – and yes, I look at you, Fuller House . There is no pathetic way to develop new programs or to engage audiences than to say, "Viewers were ready to settle for submediary crap 20 years ago, instead of doing better, we give them exactly the same sub- mediocre crap. "This is, as I said, nostalgia corruption.
There's something more valid for a second kind of reboot / remake / revival, that's the approach of $ 6 million man – the character, not the series, because for some reason that's why we chose this property Mark Wahlberg the big screen – in that you take something that was there and complete it with the new, shiny and expensive. This is the common CBS path, the MacGyver approach. Thematically, it is essentially unchanged or negligible, but the gizmos are new. This development strategy is based on, "Gee whizz, would not it be cool if …" It's lazy, but not as lazy as Fuller House .
But despite all my aversion to this trend, I gave both the Will & Grace and Roseanne revivals reasonably positive reviews, and that's because they fit into a third category. In these cases, they were shows that existed in the modern world of their moment, showing that there was a real push-and-pull culture. They were representative, and this representation helped to foster conversation in society as a whole. They are shows where their creators saw the core DNA and said, "So it was remarkable to tell these stories when the shows premiered, where the stories would be different in 2018 and why would they be funny, but different funny "This is not the same as the Fuller Houseteam chuckling and saying," But what if the characters were older now and had kids and these kids had annoying tags and their own dogs, Holy Chalupas! " It says, "This was gay representation in the nineties, and how Will and Jack fit in. It's 20 years later, how have they changed, how has the world changed?"
This is Roseanne
This, of course, brings us to the other lesson people will take of the Roseanne premiere, namely that America is ready for either sitcoms over Trump supporters or bridging gaps between Trump supporters and their alienated Trump-hating families (or Hillary supporters and their Trump-loving families).
You can already bet that someone in ABC's halls wishes they had a new season of Last Man Standing ready for premiere after Roseanne next week or, failing that in the hope that she could convince Jonathan Taylor Thomas that America is ready for more home improvement .
But Roseanne is not a conservative show. In fact, I heard many people outraged that the Roseanne Conner they knew had chosen Donald Trump. They felt that this vote was a seismic change for a family that reliably defended diversity and inclusiveness, at least as much as it could with a very, very white backdrop. They also felt that Roseanne had always taken care of social and economic issues as a show she had never done so politically before.
For me, it actually felt right. The election of Donald Trump was not a business-as-usual thing. It caused many voters to override the media people in our ivory towers – my ivory tower is a cheap IKEA couch – the thought looked very clear to us like "common sense". Many of the left-wing reactions to the political shift of the character treated it as a betrayal, as a violation of what we thought of them, and many of these reactions did not stop, brooding over whether we had the same reactions to humans know in real life who voted for Trump. It's the answer of: "Wait, how could you?" or "Wait, you do not seem like a person …", which has caused months of perplexity since November 8, 2016.
[Note: This is all separate from Roseanne Barr as a person and as the name behind a Twitter feed that recirculates misinformation, conspiracy theories, lies and occasional madness.]
"He talked about Jobs, Jackie," Roseanne said very simply in the premiere. There are such voters, voters, who taught their children the same tolerant and often progressive lessons that Roseanne taught her in the 1980s and 1990s, which decided that this time they were voting on a single topic.
I buy it. The Trump thing would never have stopped me from watching, but boy oh boy are some people on Twitter who are demonstratively showing how they kept them from watching. I suspect most of them would not be a core review of Roseanne and that the core demo of the show was likely to be seen only in a TV landscape where almost every character is likely to cast his vote Democrat or not true. Last year, when they worked out the strategy to find out what Trumps America wanted to see on television, the broadcasters debuted many shows with military themes that were, at best, greeted by lackluster interest. Maybe the only answer is that there is a part of the audience that wants to be seen.
But as a television program Roseanne is not suddenly a mouthpiece for the alto-law and any interpretation of the premiere that pretends it is an affirmation of a need for conservative television is absurd. "Dress to Impress," the episode aired after the Trump-centric premiere, was Trump-free, largely due to the ethos of the original show, that sometimes Dan and Roseanne do not "instantly grasp", but eventually they come from one Place of compassion and prickly, thick-skinned understanding to operate. The conflict and consensus must coexist in the new Roseanne .
Or, in other words, Roseanne a show that once had its peak came as a show of a new moment and as there was an audience for the show when it was at its peak it obviously an audience that was now waiting for the show.
Very few of the upcoming, already announced reboots and remakes and revivals seem like they're built to do the same. An important exception is CBS Murphy Brown a revival I do not need, but a revival that I can imagine makes sense, even though all the new character descriptions and loglines sound like CBS Just let the "millennials are weird" generation gap humor of The Great Indoors . I hope I am wrong because there is room for something more. I do not think Murphy Brown's policy in 2018 is very puzzling, but her place in today's media world may be worthwhile, unlike when she met us for the first time.
Or we could just make a remake Little Wonder because you imagine the crazy things a robot can do with today's technology!