ReBarr

I wasn't planning on bringing up the revival of Roseanne, but as the show's become a phenomenal hit, I thought I'd discuss it.

In general, I don't like the idea of reviving old TV shows.  They tend to be of a time and place, and it's hard to recapture the magic. It's usually just sad when they try.  But it's being attempted a lot lately because, I guess, network ratings have been going down for years, and even the lower ratings these old hits used to get are looking pretty good.

I did watch the old Roseanne when it first aired.  Roseanne Barr herself was a standup comedian who came out of nowhere to be huge, and the sitcom version of her life did the same.  It debuted in 1988 and was in the top three for its first five years, and remained top ten for its first seven years, reaching numbers that are essentially unobtainable today--often getting more than twice as many viewers as the revival has gotten.

I thought the show was pretty good.  Though it was built around Barr, it wasn't a vehicle, it was a true ensemble.  As the years went by, though, I watched it less and less (though I did go to a taping of a later episode written by some friends).  I stopped watching a few years before the show went off the air. (By the way, I noticed one episode of the misbegotten final season had Roseanne meeting First Lady Hillary Clinton, though she was played by an actress.)

As much as I don't like revivals, I watched the debut of the new Roseanne (and it was two half hours, back to back) just to see how they'd pull it off.  In some ways, it was nice to see the gang back, but overall, I wasn't impressed.  The jokes seemed strained, and the politics--which everyone seems to be talking about--seemed forced.

The old show could be political, but was rarely so on the nose.  The new show had debates about Trump versus Hillary in ways that I don't think All In The Family would have even tried.

Also, the show seems tired already.  Sure, the characters are older, but it's more than that--it just fells like we've seen this before, no matter how "modern" the plots are (surrogate motherhood, a boy who dresses like a girl).

Much has been written about how Roseanne (the character, as well as the person, I suppose) supports Trump.  I admit it is odd to see anyone saying good things about Trump on a mainstream show.  Trump fans--who after all, are about half the country--are used to relentless hatred from network shows.  Perhaps this is part of the reason the premiere did so well (and note the show isn't even taking sides, it's just showing someone who thinks Trump is okay), but I think conservatives are exaggerating the effect.  Mostly people wanted to see an old show they loved back on the air.

It's ironic, by the way, to see conservatives backing the show.  The original show often got the support of leftists, who saw it as a blue collar call to arms.  But then, times were different--blue collar voters were Democrats and rich whites were Republicans.  Somehow, that's been switched.

It is nice that all the main characters have shown up--Roseanne, Dan, Jackie, D.J., Darlene and even the two Beckys.  Word is Johnny Galecki will even come back for an episode. (I wonder who thought back then that he'd become so big?)

The balance has changed, though.  Originally, they were all unknowns, and Roseanne was the name.  Now, John Goodman is the bigger star, I'd say--he's certainly done a lot more than Barr has since the show went off the air.  For that matter, Laurie Metcalf--if just for her work on The Big Bang Theory and her Oscar-nominated performance in Lady Bird--is better known to the modern audience than Barr.

I was going to say I don't plan to watch the new Roseanne again. But I might, at least for a while, since it's become a lead-in to a show on its final legs, but, unlike Roseanne, is a show about an average family in the Midwest that I watched all the way through nine seasons, The Middle.