MovieChat Forums > Iaaat > Replies
Iaaat's Replies
Conversely though, if they had just killed off the B-group of characters, their deaths wouldn't have nearly the impact on the show or viewers and we'd probably be complaining about how a show about a zombie apocalypse is unrealistic, never kills off anyone important and doesn't have any balls. I do agree though, that there should be a balance or at least better writing for the characters that are left behind so that they don't feel like the B-group that's left after all the big characters are killed off.
That's what I'm worried about, too. The ratings (while good, comparatively) have steadily gone down all season. It started at 10.4 million viewers and the most recent episode got 5.54 million.
[url]https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/manifest-season-one-ratings/[/url]
The ratings obviously aren't as good as Roseanne was but The Conners (after an initial drop-off from the season premiere, when everyone tuned in to see how Roseanne's departure was handled) have maintained a pretty steady rating (between 6.6 million to 7.9 million viewers). You can see the ratings for every episode at the link below. The season finale was the highest rated episode since October 30 and it ranked #2 (after This is Us) for the night across all networks, beating new episodes of (and these are in order from biggest ratings to smallest) Ellen's Game of Games (#3), FBI, NCIS: New Orleans, New Amsterdam, Celebrity Big Brother, The Kids Are Alright, The Rookie, Black-ish, Lethal Weapon (a repeat), Splitting Up Together, The Flash, The Gifted and Rosewell New Mexico.
There's no reason why ABC wouldn't pick it up with numbers and ratings like that. Sure, it doesn't have gigantic ratings like the Roseanne reboot did, but you also have to take into account that the Roseanne reboot started out really strong (18.4 million viewers) and lost viewers every week (the season finale got 10.6 million viewers), while The Conners, albeit smaller in ratings, has remained pretty much consistent. Roseanne lost 42 percent of its audience over the reboot season; The Conners lost only 27 percent.
[url]https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/the-conners-season-one-ratings/[/url]
Check out her performance as Sophie in the In Treatment series. She was incredible in that.
Yeah, it was in that conversation he had with Maggie about growing up in a group home or whatever it was and he said something about how he's always had trouble getting close to people like "neighbors, friends... boyfriends." Other than that, I don't remember it ever being mentioned again.
There's a theory out there (that popped up during the season actually) that those two (Emily and Timothy I think their names were) are or are somehow related to Kit's two children from Asylum (their genders and races fit). Maybe they'll revisit that in the future if they have an Asylum crossover.
I think the character - as written, as their cook - didn't really fit in with the premise of the series. It would have made more logical sense had he been their gay best friend/neighbor/brother, etc but him being their cook? No. It didn't make sense that three women (and eventually Sofia) who essentially moved in together because they reached their "golden" years and it seemed more economical to do so would have the money for a personal cook (Was he a live-in as well? I can't remember). Plus, it kind of put a damper on the "strong women" aspect of the show, them overcoming the deaths of their husbands or going through a divorce late in life and surviving by being independent, making it on their own (together) but for some reason needing a personal cook. And one could also argue, once Sofia came along, known for her Italian culinary skills, a personal cook wasn't necessary anymore (assuming it ever was). The character was interesting and would've fit in with the girls, but I think they just doomed the character by having him be their cook.
Here are some of my random picks that come to mind:
Alias - "Phase One" (the post-Super Bowl episode, where the whole show changes)
Friends - "The One Where Everybody Finds Out" (...about Monica and Chandler dating)
Breaking Bad - "Ozymandias" (episode that opens with a big death, then later the big family fight)
Charmed - "All Hell Breaks Loose" (finale, world finds out they're witches, cliffhanger that killed one)
Mama's Family - "The Really Loud Family" (Bubba films the family with a camera with a short in it)
Six Feet Under - "Everyone's Waiting" (especially the last scene/montage, best series finale ever)
I hope not because if it is, that means I was neglected as a child. I get that the world is more dangerous now, but is being over-protective the answer? The world has always been dangerous and you can't protect anyone from everything all of the time. I'm grateful my parents trusted me and let me have a "free range" childhood (or whatever the hell they're calling it now) because it gave me a sense of independence and responsibility.
I sound like an old person, sitting around talking about "these kids nowadays," but I'm technically a millennial (I grew up in the 90s) and it's really weird seeing people I grew up with (who rode their bikes with me in the same neighborhoods and hung out at the same mall I did) being over-protective with their own children. It makes no sense. My local mall - it's a wonder it's still open - instituted a policy a couple years ago that if you were under 18, you had to be accompanied by a parent. I used to hang out there with my friends when I was in middle school. I'd be kicked out now. It's extreme. There are kids out there who are 16, have driver's licenses, their own car and part-time jobs but can't even go into the mall and spend their own money there without a parent - you know, for safety. Again, it makes no sense.
I also hate that there's never anything good on Friday and Saturday nights. Now, they're considered "death" slots because any show they put on there doesn't get high enough ratings for the network. It's assumed because most people "go out" on Friday and Saturday nights, but that's when I like to stay in, when EVERYONE is out, crowding up places and stores. They need to put some interesting things on Friday and Saturday nights for us homebodies.
I read an article once that said the reason why theater snacks - especially the popcorn - are so overpriced is because most of the money made on movie tickets goes to the studios. For many theaters, profits from the snacks and drinks are the only money they make the first few weeks of a film's release.
I think her age and being out of practice are contributing factors, but I also think - and this is symptomatic of many modern sitcoms - there are too many "pre-written jokes" in the show. It's like the writers go in with jokes and write a script around them rather than coming up with funny scenarios and finding the jokes within them. The whole (and I'm paraphrasing) "you have an uncle who wasn't even born all the way... his legs just grew long enough to touch the ground" joke. It totally sounds like some rejected stand-up joke that's been swirling around in one of the writer's heads for years and they finally had a chance to use it by writing a scene around it for Roseanne. You know what I mean? And the whole talking to the dog and telling it she wasn't going to give any more money to their organization and to stop with the sad commercials because they're ruining her snacks. Same kind of thing. Her delivery in regular, non-jokey, just funny dialogue is a little better.
The new Will & Grace has the same kind of voice over despite it not having it in the old episodes. The only reason I can think of is the recent rise in single-camera comedies and a millennial (or even post-millennial) generation who grew up with them and often complain about old sitcoms and their "laugh track" (them not realizing it's usually a "live audience") - a "laugh track" which is "insulting" because they, in their superiority, "don't need to be told when to laugh."
See, that would actually make sense, but without a one-off line about how maybe she wasn't strict enough with them because she was afraid she'd turn into her abusive father or something like that, it ruins Roseanne's character a little (or at least isn't consistent). I still think it was just thrown in to pander to conservatives. I mean, the conservative media and commenters are already praising it: "'Roseanne' tackles PC parenting in second episode of revival" [url] http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/04/03/roseanne-tackles-pc-parenting-in-second-episode-revival.html[/url]