Showing posts with label Roseanne. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roseanne. Show all posts

Friday, November 25, 2011

Back to Ohio, Day Two: The Aftermath

This is my second day in Ohio, the day after Thanksgiving. The first of four "cheat" days in my diet and exercise regimen, which has helped me shed 30 pounds in 2-1/2 months. Did I do any damage? Am I in a coma? Well, I'm not really sure, since I'm writing this before my departure! When I go away, I always do two things: I "seed" the blog with a few time-release posts. And, more importantly, I enlist the help of Stupid Monkey Planet, who livens things up around here considerably.

But given that this is a long, slow, food-coma weekend, both the Monkey and I are apt to only be around sporadically. Which is okay, because it is also a record low time for readers. So if you're here, what's wrong with you? There's cold turkey and mayonnaise in the fridge. You know you want to. . .

And now, some Thanksgiving weirdness, from Roseanne. . .



Sunday, December 5, 2010

Roseanne on Death: Dad is Dead

I'm watching Nick at Night right now, and it's the episode where Roseanne's dad dies. At 1:30 in the video below, you will find one of the best darkly humerous death-related comedy bits ever on broadcast television.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

A Roseanne Thanksgiving

Holidays are always a time for reruns. So here's one I ran last year!

And heck, why not, an episode of Roseanne. I think they did a Thanksgiving themed episode every year, and it always reminded me of my family. This is part 1, but the other parts are available at the end of the clip. Enjoy.

Monday, March 16, 2009

American Remake of Brit-Com Not so Fabulous?


Image from source, Qweerty

I'm a big fan of the British cult-classic sitcom, Absolutely Fabulous, and have even posted a few items about it in the past. So, you'd think I'd be excited about the prospect of an American version of the show. But everything I've seen about the project has been to report about how unfabulous it is.

Several British shows have been remade here in the States, some with spectacular success, like All in the Family, Three's Company and Sanford and Son. But for every The Office, there are bombs like Coupling, Kath & Kim, or the Fawlty Towers remake with Bea Arthur, Amanda's. The new AbFab could land in either category, but early consensus says the latter.

They've tried to bring AbFab to American television before. Roseanne brought the original actresses--in character as Edina Monsoon and Patsy Stone--to the final, "fantasy" season of her show. Roseanne was planning on making a US version of the show, but her plans apparently fell through. Then, Jean Smart and Mary McConnell brought High Society to the air. It was a sitcom not based on AbFab, but it was clearly an homage or rip-off, if you prefer. It was cancelled after a single season.

The problem with doing an American version is the unique "Britishness" of the show, and the fact that Edina and Patsy are hedonistic, drug-using, alcohol abusing, cigarette smokers. Patsy likes sex a lot, and both are horrible to Edina's sensible daughter, Saffy. US television--even on FOX--is going to have to clean these characters up a bit, and in doing so, they will suffer in comparison. The key to success will be to make the show and its characters different enough that they're not direct copies. But doing that will tick off the fans. Sounds like a lose/lose to me.

[Excerpt]

The Ab Fab Diary: On the Remake Set With Edina and Patsy

Have you ever heard a straight man say the words “absolutely fabulous” in a hetero monotone? This was our introduction to the Sony Pictures lot in Culver City where the rent-a-cop peaked in my car, took one look at me and my friend George in his Gautier glasses, and flatly asked, “Absolutely Fabulous?” Try saying “absolutely fabulous” with no emotion. It is laughable. George and I repeated it in our best straight man voices sporadically throughout the evening — an evening spent remaking the hit 1990s comedy Absolutely Fabulous. . .

Read more at: Qweerty

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Roseanne Thanksgiving

And heck, why not, an episode of Roseanne. I think they did a Thanksgiving themed episode every year, and it always reminded me of my family. This is part 1, but the other parts are available at the end of the clip. Enjoy.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Frivolity Break: Idle Observations About Sitcoms


Photo of Roseanne house from Sitcoms Online

I'm watching the very first episode of Seinfeld at the moment (originally called The Seinfeld Chronicles), and I was struck with a very Seinfeldian thought, about the way stage sets in sitcoms don't make much sense. That led my brain on a quick hopscotch of several unusual--not exactly annoying--but slightly irritating conventions of sitcoms on TV.

This of course means nothing to anybody, but the whole point of having a blog is to let your brain run free, right? Well, it's one of the points, anyway. So here, as best as I can unravel my brain, are those sitcom conventions that just jump out at me.

• Characters, sets and actors different in first episode - This one is easy to understand, but hard to squeeze in to "canon" if you are one of those people who tries to place storylines into the real world. Pilot or first episodes are often made before a series is green lit, and changes are often made for episode two. But the effect can be jarring. On Seinfeld for instance, Kramer acts less kooky, and looks quite different. Often, pilot shows are never aired, or re-edited to make sense in the scheme of things, but not always. On Laverne & Shirley, Shirley had a honking accent in the first episode, gone by episode 2.

• Sitcom sets don't make sense - Take the interior of the Roseanne house, for example, and the establishing shots from the outside. The front door on the exterior is far too close to the "TV" wall to contain the living room on the inside. On the The Golden Girls, the in and out shots don't match, but make matters much worse, as the girls' bedrooms and their garage must share the same exact space. On Happy Days, the same exterior was used, but the set changed to have the front door on the opposite side of the house!

On three-camera shows (like all mentioned so far) the sets often "fan" out too much. I understand the necessity of the stage and the cameras, but it is handled well on shows like Two and a Half Men, and Will & Grace. Others, not so much. Again, Seinfeld was a culprit, with a floorplan that makes little sense on paper. Especially, when you notice that in the first episode, there's a refrigerator taking up a huge chunk of kitchen, and in subsequent episodes it is set into a nook in the wall--which would poke it out into the doorway/hallway.

• Who has a living room like that? - Almost every standard sitcom is centered around two or three major sets. One, the kitchen table, which has enough room for everybody to walk freely around, with plenty of other space in the kitchen--even in apartments. And unless the whole family is at the table, or poker is being played, most of the people cluster around half the table.

Then there is the living room, which has a large couch in the middle of the room, a couple of chairs, a coffee table, and a (usually unseen) TV. The visible portions of the rooms are often far too large for the typical American, and the people all seem to be situated toward a TV even when one is not on. I've lived in a lot of places, but I've never had room to put my couch in the middle.

The third set is more varied, usually a diner, a bar, a bowling alley. No humans frequent one establishment this much, do they?

• So many relatives! - On long running sitcoms, the characters seem to have an endless supply of uncles, aunts, siblings, grown children and friends that you see just once, and who are rarely or never spoken of again. They're usually brought in when they score a big name guest star, or an "issue" like homosexuality, a drinking problem, a gambling problem, etc. I'd love to see a flow-chart of all of the Golden Girls' family trees.

• From flaky to idiot - If a character is slightly daffy, you can count on them to become eccentric and deeply disturbed as time goes on, like Phoebe from Friends. Or if they're slightly dim, like Chrissy on Three's Company, they'll be a full blown idiot by season three.

• Where did they go? - After season four or five, major characters sometimes leave a show, and are never heard from, and rarely referred to again. Not such a big deal if it's a friend that moves away--people drift apart. But how about a kid leaving to go to college, and then not show up for Christmas or weddings or funerals? Only the best writers put a reference into the script. If the show is Family Matters or Happy Days, children of the main characters just disappear! Forever!

There's much more of course, but my mind jumps around so much, I've lost them for the moment. Maybe I should take notes. In any event, to give this post a little more interest, here are some classic sitcom moments for those who have read this far.




1 - Roseanne - "Jackie makes a phone call" - One of the funniest scenes ever, shows an exterior shot of the house, where you can see that the front door is too close to the edge of the house for the set.

2 - Three's Company - "Bloopers" - Just for fun.

3 - The Golden Girls - "Blanche and the Shoe Salesman" - In the kitchen set, the garage is set to the left on the far wall. On the other side of that wall is a hallway leading to bedrooms that must occupy the same space. Exterior shots show the garage on the other side of the house.

4 - Seinfeld - "25 Greatest Moments" - One of which is sure to show the refrigerator, most of which is buried impossibly in the wall. Great show, but this set makes no sense.

And finally, why not throw in the kitchen sink, and give you a link to some basic sitcom conventions? Basic Form and Conventions

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

More Money in Iraq Unaccounted For


Photo from source, Reuters.com

Did you ever see the episode of Roseanne, where Roseanne and Dan went to Las Vegas? Roseanne is at one of those sliding quarter machines, and says, "how hard can this be?" She then asks Dan, over and over again for quarters: "Gimme another one!"

Bush is in the casino. As reported earlier, he's once again asking for billions more, all the while things like this are going on:

[Excerpt]

U.S. cannot account for billion-dollar Iraq contract

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The State Department does not know specifically what it received for a billion-dollar contract with security firm DynCorp International to provide training services for Iraqi police, a U.S. watchdog agency said on Tuesday. [snip]

"As a result, INL does not know specifically what it received for most of the $1.2 billion in expenditures under its DynCorp contract for the Iraqi Police Training Program. INL's prior lack of controls created an environment vulnerable to waste and fraud," SIGIR said in an interim review. . .

Read the whole thing at: Reuters.com

Monday, September 10, 2007

Fred Thompson on Roseanne

Well not on Roseanne. . .on Roseanne! Some people are worried that repeated airings of Law & Order will unfairly paint Fred Thompson in a flattering light, and give him free campaign "commercials." All they need to do is counter-program them with smarmy characters like this one, Mr. Faber, Roseanne's boss.

UPDATE: In case you didn't know, Fred Thompson actually replaced George Clooney as Roseanne's boss. How wrong is that?

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...