I mean, by virtue of having fewer episodes alone they are better. Can you imagine if Little Britain had damn near 200 episodes?Baffle2 said:British sitcoms are better. Probably not by much. But a bit.
I mean, by virtue of having fewer episodes alone they are better. Can you imagine if Little Britain had damn near 200 episodes?Baffle2 said:British sitcoms are better. Probably not by much. But a bit.
Well, I have little love for the dogma of Islam either, though, to be fair, I don't feel any better about any other large religion. Thing is, negativity directed towards muslims is, in the west, practically always an act of punching down and it's become such a popular past time that it's hard not to have some sympathy with muslims, even if you might find their religion disagreeable in many aspects. It's a hierarchical thing, you know.Kiall said:Having looked through that article I'm struggling to see any real issue with the (paraphrased) statements:
A) Islam is full of bad ideas.
B) While every religion is guilty of terrible excesses of violence and oppression Muslims are overwhelmingly behind such actions today.
Is it really bigoted to make two statements that are factually correct?
For the most part they don't tend to drag on too long, though Little Britain isn't really a sitcom so much as a sketch show. I don't much like it myself.BreakfastMan said:I mean, by virtue of having fewer episodes alone they are better. Can you imagine if Little Britain had damn near 200 episodes?
Reminds me, I'm pretty sure Laurie Metcalf and John Goodman were REAL appreciative of her for this.jademunky said:BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... ahem.
I feel bad for John Goodman on this one. He was always way too talented for that drek and I was a little disappointed in him that he agreed to go back to it. Hope they cut him a big paycheque.
One person didn't know about it? Must not have happened then.jademunky said:So much so that I had no idea that it had existed for 6 seasons until this thread just now.Just Ebola said:the leftist media threw a collective shit fit when they announced Time Allen's show was coming back.
One person likened the show to an attack? All liberals must think it's profane then. You could have at least put a sentence or 2 between these two points; it might have somewhat toned down the blatant hypocrisy if nothing else.Just Ebola said:One person didn't know about it? Must not have happened then.
Shortly after I remember reading an article by a liberal, likening the show to an attack on safe spaces. I think it says a lot that even just having a counter-point to the mostly liberal media is seen as something profane.
Oh hun... Are we really going full (((globalist))) conspiracy theory on this one?Just Ebola said:It was suspicious that the show got canned in the first place, considering the ratings were head and shoulders above most other sitcoms, almost as if Hollywood being 99% liberal had something to do with it.
That's weird, I read a lot of this liberal medias amongst others and never come across any mention of this subject. It's literally the first I've ever heard of seen of it. Weird indeed. Got to be conspiracies again.Just Ebola said:One person didn't know about it? Must not have happened then.jademunky said:So much so that I had no idea that it had existed for 6 seasons until this thread just now.Just Ebola said:the leftist media threw a collective shit fit when they announced Time Allen's show was coming back.
Shortly after I remember reading an article by a liberal, likening the show to an attack on safe spaces. I think it says a lot that even just having a counter-point to the mostly liberal media is seen as something profane. It was suspicious that the show got canned in the first place, considering the ratings were head and shoulders above most other sitcoms, almost as if Hollywood being 99% liberal had something to do with it.
Doubly important in this case.Silentpony said:There's at least a higher chance of nudity in them if nothing else.
I think Just Ebola was referring to Tim Allen's show, which was cancelled but is coming back. Roseanne's show was set for renewal until her Shwitter-storm.Avnger said:One person likened the show to an attack? All liberals must think it's profane then. You could have at least put a sentence or 2 between these two points; it might have somewhat toned down the blatant hypocrisy if nothing else.Just Ebola said:One person didn't know about it? Must not have happened then.
Shortly after I remember reading an article by a liberal, likening the show to an attack on safe spaces. I think it says a lot that even just having a counter-point to the mostly liberal media is seen as something profane.
Oh hun... Are we really going full (((globalist))) conspiracy theory on this one?Just Ebola said:It was suspicious that the show got canned in the first place, considering the ratings were head and shoulders above most other sitcoms, almost as if Hollywood being 99% liberal had something to do with it.
The leading star (and namesake) of the show pulled the ultimate PR no-no in the form of announcing to the entire world that they're an ignorant, racist bigot. This is on top of the regular Infowars and "QAnon" conspiracies and hateful rhetoric she publicly advocates. Oh and there's also the fact that several of her co-stars and writers were quitting in response.
Maybe, just maybe, ABC decided that garnering goodwill with the public, its employees, and the actors, actresses, and other people they depend upon for their product was worth more in the long run than pandering to bigots? Crazy thought, right?
It's almost as if the precious alt-right is simply a loud minority instead of the silent majority they believe they are.
Exactly. From what I saw most of the cast and producers were set to quit in protest and rather than have the show be murdered by them, thus making ABC look to be on Roseanne's side, ABC and Disney decided it'd be easier to just axe the entire show while Roseanne was redhot, thus garnering 72hrs worth of positive news coverage.Avnger said:One person likened the show to an attack? All liberals must think it's profane then. You could have at least put a sentence or 2 between these two points; it might have somewhat toned down the blatant hypocrisy if nothing else.Just Ebola said:One person didn't know about it? Must not have happened then.
Shortly after I remember reading an article by a liberal, likening the show to an attack on safe spaces. I think it says a lot that even just having a counter-point to the mostly liberal media is seen as something profane.
Oh hun... Are we really going full (((globalist))) conspiracy theory on this one?Just Ebola said:It was suspicious that the show got canned in the first place, considering the ratings were head and shoulders above most other sitcoms, almost as if Hollywood being 99% liberal had something to do with it.
The leading star (and namesake) of the show pulled the ultimate PR no-no in the form of announcing to the entire world that they're an ignorant, racist bigot. This is on top of the regular Infowars and "QAnon" conspiracies and hateful rhetoric she publicly advocates. Oh and there's also the fact that several of her co-stars and writers were quitting in response.
Maybe, just maybe, ABC decided that garnering goodwill with the public, its employees, and the actors, actresses, and other people they depend upon for their product was worth more in the long run than pandering to bigots? Crazy thought, right?
It's almost as if the precious alt-right is simply a loud minority instead of the silent majority they believe they are.
Except there's a world of difference between some rando not hearing about something and a litany of leftist articles celebrating the cancellation and more recently, bemoaning the revival. Blantant hypocrisy seems a bit harsh.Avnger said:One person likened the show to an attack? All liberals must think it's profane then. You could have at least put a sentence or 2 between these two points; it might have somewhat toned down the blatant hypocrisy if nothing else.Just Ebola said:One person didn't know about it? Must not have happened then.
Shortly after I remember reading an article by a liberal, likening the show to an attack on safe spaces. I think it says a lot that even just having a counter-point to the mostly liberal media is seen as something profane.
Oh hun... Are we really going full (((globalist))) conspiracy theory on this one?Just Ebola said:It was suspicious that the show got canned in the first place, considering the ratings were head and shoulders above most other sitcoms, almost as if Hollywood being 99% liberal had something to do with it.
The leading star (and namesake) of the show pulled the ultimate PR no-no in the form of announcing to the entire world that they're an ignorant, racist bigot. This is on top of the regular Infowars and "QAnon" conspiracies and hateful rhetoric she publicly advocates. Oh and there's also the fact that several of her co-stars and writers were quitting in response.
Maybe, just maybe, ABC decided that garnering goodwill with the public, its employees, and the actors, actresses, and other people they depend upon for their product was worth more in the long run than pandering to bigots? Crazy thought, right?
It's almost as if the precious alt-right is simply a loud minority instead of the silent majority they believe they are.
Must be the Mandela effect. Or Aliens.Xsjadoblayde said:That's weird, I read a lot of this liberal medias amongst others and never come across any mention of this subject. It's literally the first I've ever heard of seen of it. Weird indeed. Got to be conspiracies again.
Yep, this.COMaestro said:I think Just Ebola was referring to Tim Allen's show, which was cancelled but is coming back. Roseanne's show was set for renewal until her Shwitter-storm.
I feel it would be disrespectful to refer to something as a little trainwreck.CaitSeith said:The more I hear about this, the more I'm glad I never heard about Roseanne before. It all sounds like a big train wreck!
It all depends on the context:Baffle2 said:I feel it would be disrespectful to refer to something as a little trainwreck.CaitSeith said:The more I hear about this, the more I'm glad I never heard about Roseanne before. It all sounds like a big train wreck!
I was a toddler for the original run, at least when it started, and from what I've gathered it was a hot mess from day 1. Roseanne loved firing people and screaming, she had to be the smartest and funniest person in the room, she had final say over everything, and in the final seasons when she took over as producer she started do what I can only guess are personal fantasy episodes, like Roseambo where Roseanna teams up with Stephen Seagal to save Hilary Clinton from some terrorists on a train. And it was considered 'good' television, without Crow T Robot, Tom Servo and Mike Nelson.CaitSeith said:The more I hear about this, the more I'm glad I never heard about Roseanne before. It all sounds like a big train wreck!
That must have been an extremely difficult pretense, even for the world-class actors that went on to star in the Big Bang Theory.Silentpony said:she had to be the smartest and funniest person in the room
Dear Lord is Golden Girls so good. I got my girlfriend into it along with 30 Rock.aegix drakan said:On the slightly off-topic-ish topic of sitcoms, literally the only two I ever found watchable were:
Everybody love Raymond (because on top of the comically loony characters, they'd throw in some interesting subversions here and there)
And Golden Girls. That show was brilliant. It's still brilliant to this day. I can't get enough Sicily Stories, St-Olaf stories, and Dorothy's biting sarcasm.
On the actual topic of Roseanne getting cancelled...Oh well. Her post was preeeetty bad, so I'm not surprised that the network just dropped her like a hot potato to save face.