Trans representation in gaming

[Saelune]

Tweets that were full of seriously nasty racially charged nastiness.

She straight up called a black woman whose politics she disagreed with an ape fused with the muslim brotherhood. Or more succinctly: "Look at that unintelligent un-evolved animal terrorist!" when black people were oppressed and enslaved for a longass time under the justification that "they're just unintelligent animals". Bringing that back up...That's not ok.

Not saying it is, but the point is that there's precedent for shutting down a commercially and critically successful show due to external matters. It wasn't just Roseanne who lost her job, it was the hundreds of people who worked on the show by extension.

You could like, blame Roseanne. She didnt have to be a terrible person, she chose to be, and it was her who jeopardized all those people's job.

If people can be fired for being LGBT, then why cant they be fired for being just a bad person?

 

[Hawki]

Commercially successful by whom? ABC could jeopardise $9 billion of fall advertising. This is particularly true when its viewership is alienated in terms of other projects they've done. This is the thing, why exactly is it ABC firing 100s of people, not Roseanne Barr getting them fired for not living up her claim of quitting Twitter because she couldn't trust herself around it...?

This is kind of all over the place - at the least, I've never heard of these "other projects," and if the ABC is tainted as a whole by Roseanne's comments, then that says more on the people holding it to be 'tainted' than the ABC as a whole.

See, if I was running a new product launch branch of a successful company, and I fuck it up so completely and utterly and the larger parent company shuts us down and torpedoes our contracts, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Your argument comes off as Fountainhead-y without actually questioning the legitimacy of the fact that even the architect is an employee being asked to do a job the way the customer requires/wants.

If we're going into analogies, a better one would be that we have a company with an employee. The employee does something reprehensible and is (justifiably) called out for it. Problem is, every employee under that employee also loses their job by extension.

You could like, blame Roseanne. She didnt have to be a terrible person, she chose to be, and it was her who jeopardized all those people's job.

If people can be fired for being LGBT, then why cant they be fired for being just a bad person?

I do blame Roseanne to the extent of her own actions. It's the ABC's prerogative to do what they want with her. However, believe it or not, I'm iffy about the concept of punishment by association, and the idea that you can't separate art from the artist.

If you want an example of people handling this better than ABC did, look at the Kevin Spacy issue. The charges against him are far worse than racist tweets, but at the least, Netflix managed to move ahead with House of Cards. Its staff and actors didn't have to be out of work because of the lead actor's transgressions. Or, to think of the James Gunn drama, as much as I disagree with Disney's decision to fire him, they at least haven't scrapped Guardians of the Galaxy 3.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I also don?t know how much more real the jokes can get; that?s why they?re good.

You confuse the meaning of "real".

In the clip I posted, Bob joked about another drag queen being a meth addict. Said person would go on to nearly die from overdosing a few months later. In that sense, the joke is true.

But the emotion expressed by the joke is not real, and the audience knows that, partly because the context and format is set up to reinforce that it is not real. The distance I'm talking about is psychological distance from the emotional impact of the joke.

It is very different from me going up to someone at at their child's funeral and talking about how their kid was a loser and how much I hated them and am glad they're dead. It's not fair or reasonable to expect someone to have the emotional distance to find that funny. It's not divorced from that person's real life right now, and that's what I mean by "real".

That's not how genetics work... I have the genes to develop a functional hand, cutting it off doesn't mean I'll grow a new one.

The culture is pretty much written as a society in which anything can be done to the human body. People can be taken apart and put back together almost at the cellular level, if needs be. I don't think if it's ever explained how much of changing sex is surgical and how much is genetic. It doesn't really matter, the point is that we are being presented with a society and an authorial perspective in which it is normal. Heck, the main character in Player of Games (probably the book with the most overtly gendered themes) is heterosexual and has never changed sex, and this is not only considered weird in the society he lives in, but ultimately signifies everything that is wrong with his character from the perspective of the audience. The conclusion of his arc and the narrative payoff to this is literally expressed in his ability to desire someone of indeterminate sex. For a straight dude publishing in the late-80s, it's still some pretty amazing shit even to this day.

I mean, I don't want to overplay it. Banks doesn't always deliver on the promise on what the Culture should be in the way a queer writer perhaps could, but that promise is still very explicitly there.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

This is kind of all over the place - at the least, I've never heard of these "other projects," and if the ABC is tainted as a whole by Roseanne's comments, then that says more on the people holding it to be 'tainted' than the ABC as a whole.

What are you having difficulties understanding? Effectively what ends up happening is that networks tend to offer advertisement slots at key times and directly engage possiblemarket lead firms whether they wantto buy into it. The thing is that companieshave a vested interest not merely in what time slot, but what type of programs will be routinely shown in a seasonal slot.

Whether people are influenced by the show or not, product placement may be affected. Given that Roseanne Barr was notoriously running her mouth on Twitter, stepping into the lines of outright defamation, companies may be alienated by that.

To put it another way ... you have hot real estate, but a bad tenant. And ABC had spent awhile trying to build up a certain type of image that, if they cannot guarantee to maintain, then it becomes somewhat problematic to companies querying whether their want their branding associated with the show. Greater demand, the increased amount you can charge ... Less takers reduces total demand. Less demand, less revenue being generated even by those that agree to take out advertising slots.

Barr herself said she'd stay away from the Twitter accounts because she couldn't help herself. But then decided to launch fresh garbage yet again.

Roseanne was midseasons and unmonetized at that point. Meaning it was already existing on borrowed capital for the costs of running the show. Meaning that ABC were trying to use it to generate additional ad revenue and as a sign post of what companies can expect to have that their product placement will sandwich over future spring and fall seasons assuming they become long term partners.

Ratings alone do not monetize a show ... advertisement based on ratings does. But then again so does content and the visibility of its cast.

Kantar Media Advertisement got, what, 45 million only from its initial 9 week run cycle? The thing is that ABC was trying to poach Pepsico and McDonalds contracts ... but the thing is that Barr's incessant Twitter activity would have likely made those social contract sensitive companies more than a little leery.

So what you end up with is a dilemma. See Disney needed to create at least one season of Roseanne, and then book it again immediately, and that creates a problem. You have a show that people will watch, bvut alsoa show that generates a whole lot of public negativity, occupying a key lineup slot, that would otherwise generate inflated ad revenue real estate ... but will it generate the customers that will pay for that inflated branding highlighting in the face of all that emotion-charge social dialogue?

With an increasingly incessant, erratic, downright bigoted and defamatory lead in a controversial role ... no. Like seriously ... no. Of course it wouldn't.

Canvs did emotional measures of the sitcom through social media, and Roseanne was generating more generalized hatred than any other sit-com. And once more, that was often based exclusively on people's reactions to Roseanne Barr herself. And the problem is major marketing firms look to things like Canvs to instruct their clients howand where they should aim their advertisement efforts.

Basically it's like people's initial reaction to Starlight Glimmer post S5 MLP, only Roseanne Barr deserves it.

You're effectively running a high-visibility show but inheriting a social commentary no one wants to be seen with.

The thing is that Roseanne does not belong to ABC ... they merely axed it ... in a year the contract reverts to its current major holder. Which is Carsey Werner? IDK ... I can't remember. Anyways, they can always pitch the show elsewhere.

Doubtful the cast will entertain reprising roles barring Roseanne Barr, however.

If we're going into analogies, a better one would be that we have a company with an employee. The employee does something reprehensible and is (justifiably) called out for it. Problem is, every employee under that employee also loses their job by extension.

The cast may be a bit screwed, but you'll find the crew will probably be called in for whatever replaces it. Whether dribs and drabs, or wholesale. At least for the initial unonetized period where ABC may take on additional staffers.

After all, it's not like ABC studios won't actually help monetize and support some future show.

Once again ... you can blame Roseanne Barr. A TV studio shouldn't feel as if hostage to a rogue bigot pretending like people's jobs gives her a licence to villify people on Twitter and not suffer consequences for that.

It's unfair, and I hope they line up new work ... but it's not the studio's fault for them losing their job.

So, once again ... commercial success for whom? Because it certainly wasn't going to be for ABC. ABC can slot in another show, that will generategreater ad revenue sooner, with less leery looks, that will poll better with viewers and post-tv sales figures, and quieten advertiser qualms about associations in the future.

 

[Mcgeezaks]

I'm sorry, why was erttheking suspended for their post?

Is it because they used particular words in it, specifically stating those were words you could use without repercussions back in 2005?

Because that is some crazy irony that they were suspended for even saying the words while trying to state that the world was not a better place when you could use those words offensively without repercussions, but now you are suspended for MENTIONING those words.

Yes he was banned for that, back on GameTrailers I was perm-banned for just spelling out the f-word. Mods on this site are ridiculous lmao

 

[Hawki]

What are you having difficulties understanding? Effectively what ends up happening is that networks tend to offer advertisement slots at key times and directly engage possiblemarket lead firms whether they wantto buy into it. The thing is that companieshave a vested interest not merely in what time slot, but what type of programs will be routinely shown in a seasonal slot.

I'm aware how ad revenue is generated from commercial TV.

Whether people are influenced by the show or not, product placement may be affected. Given that Roseanne Barr was notoriously running her mouth on Twitter, stepping into the lines of outright defamation, companies may be alienated by that.

They may, but we'll never know. There was certainly no decline in ratings up to that point.

To put it another way ... you have hot real estate, but a bad tenant. And ABC had spent awhile trying to build up a certain type of image that, if they cannot guarantee to maintain, then it becomes somewhat problematic to companies querying whether their want their branding associated with the show. Greater demand, the increased amount you can charge ... Less takers reduces total demand. Less demand, less revenue being generated even by those that agree to take out advertising slots.

Except I don't think a tenant could be evicted simply for using bad language. It may be problematic for the holder of the estate, but they'd need far more legal justification to evict them.

Also, Roseanne (the show) is just one of many with the ABC, so a better analogy would be the estate owner holding multiple estates, but having a problematic tenant in one of them.

Roseanne was midseasons and unmonetized at that point. Meaning it was already existing on borrowed capital for the costs of running the show. Meaning that ABC were trying to use it to generate additional ad revenue and as a sign post of what companies can expect to have that their product placement will sandwich over future spring and fall seasons assuming they become long term partners.

Ratings alone do not monetize a show ... advertisement based on ratings does. But then again so does content and the visibility of its cast.

Kantar Media Advertisement got, what, 45 million only from its initial run cycle? The thing is that ABC was trying to poach Pepsico and McDonalds contracts ... but the thing is that Barr's incessant Twitter activity would have likely made those social contract sensitive companies more than a little leery.

Again, I know how advertising works.

So what you end up with is a dilemma. See Disney needed to create at least one season of Roseanne, and then book it again immediately, and that creates a problem. You have a show that people will watch, bvut alsoa show that generates a whole lot of public negativity, occupying a key lineup slot, that would otherwise generate inflated ad revenue real estate ... but will it generate the customers that will pay for that inflated branding highlighting in the face of all that emotion-charge social dialogue?

Except there was barely a chance for public outcry to affect the show.

The thing is that Roseanne does not belong to ABC ... they merely axed it ... in a year the contract reverts to its current major holder. Which is Casey Werner? IDK ... I can't remember. Anyways, they can always pitch the show elsewhere.

Doubtful the cast will entertain reprising roles barring Roseanne Barr, however.

There's a spinoff being made apparently.

The cast may be a bit screwed, but you'll find the crew will probably be called in for whatever replaces it. Whether dribs and drabs, or wholesale. At least for the initial unonetized period where ABC may take on additional staffers.

The cast, sure. The crew? Not so much. There's a gap between one show being cancelled and another being created.

Once again ... you can blame Roseanne Barr. A TV studio shouldn't feel as if hostage to a rogue bigot pretending like people jobs gives her a licence to villify people on Twitter and not suffer consequences for that.

It's unfair, and I hope they line up new work ... but it's not the studio'sfault for them losing their job.

I can hold Roseanne Barr accountable for her own actions, and the knock-off actions of that to an extent. But I can't excuse ABC's scorched earth policy either.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I'm aware how ad revenue is generated from commercial TV.

Then it should be a moot point.

They may, but we'll never know. There was certainly no decline in ratings up to that point.

But we do know... Kantar generated roughly only 45 million in a 9 week cycle, and the fact of the matter was we had industry leads publish some pretty damnable questions whether Roseanne would generate big name ad revenue longterm. Basically a whole lot of companies jumped in at the start, then were likely quietly sending emails asking whether Barr wasalways going to be like this.

It's almost as if McDonald's doesn't want to be associated with public racists ... I can't imagine why. Mystery for the ages, I'm sure.

Like, they published their financials.

Except I don't think a tenant could be evicted simply for using bad language.

They can if their contract says they can.

Also, Roseanne (the show) is just one of many with the ABC, so a better analogy would be the estate owner holding multiple estates, but having a problematic tenant in one of them.

It was also a flagship product they were palming to advertisers. That's the thing ... if she just shut up it would have been fine. You can moralize about the situation as much as you want, but when you're a public face of a product line up you can't complain when you make justifiably bad impressions on people.

And by 'bad', we're talking defamatory public diatribes even after you promised you'll stop.

TV personalities get away with trolling people on the internet, they dont usually survive totally alienating sponsors.

Again, I know how advertising works.

So who's commercial success, again?

Except there was barely a chance for public outcry to affect the show.

Well there was ... there was the Canvs emotion registry measurement that advertisers, marketing firms and networks look to to evaluate product placements and actual social saturation of media.

There's a spinoff being made apparently.

Well there you go.

I can hold Roseanne Barr accountable for her own actions, and the knock-off actions of that to an extent. But I can't excuse ABC's scorched earth policy either.

Why? More accurately to say, how else should they have handled it? Thespians drop off and return to tv all the time. Do you feel the same way for every worker in every industry? I have more sympathies for all the people pulling <40K a year regardless of what they do facing uncertain employment.

 

[Hawki]

Why? More accurately to say, how else should they have handled it?

I can think of a few ways:

-Censure Roseanne Barr in a manner more extreme than past censuring (e.g. reduced pay, pay hiatus, temporary suspension)

-State that you don't support her comments.

-Don't make a snap decision to terminate the show, wait a bit to see how things turn out.

-If the decision has to be made to cancel it, ensure that there's as much safe transition for former employees as possible.

Again, I point to Netflix, how it handled the Kevin Spacey issue. Y'know, someone whose alleged crimes are more severe than foul mouthedness on Twitter, yet the showrunners found a way to keep the show on for at least one more season, which means that the series not only gets closure, but there's cast and crew who have work for a bit longer. Believe me, I'm going to miss Frank Underwood, but in this case, I think this is perhaps the best middle ground Netflix could have had. But scorched earth over tweets, however racist they might be? Not so much.

Thespians drop off and return to tv all the time. Do you feel the same way for every worker in every industry?

I feel the same way for anyone who loses their jobs for reasons beyond their control.

I have more sympathies for all the people pulling <40K a year.

Good to know I have your sympathy then.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

I can think of a few ways:

-Censure Roseanne Barr in a manner more extreme than past censuring (e.g. reduced pay, pay hiatus, temporary suspension)

I think you'll find they were contractually obligated to pay the full amount as negotiated prior in agreements.

-State that you don't support her comments.

Offer per tweet retractions? That's basically paying someone a full time job alone just for Barr.

-Don't make a snap decision to terminate the show, wait a bit to see how things turn out.

They didn't ... they repeatedly cautioned her. They repeatedly contacted her. They repeatedly told her why this could land people in hot water.

What next?

Strapping her to a chair, forcibly medicating her? I can't imagine any job with such high stakes that I would ever get such a number of warnings. Any job I have ever had I probably would have been let go if I espoused a vaguest hint of the sheer degree of her garbage.

And with good reason...

-If the decision has to be made to cancel it, ensure that there's as much safe transition for former employees as possible.

They cancelled a show ... it ain't the first, won't be the last, and if TV, and Roseanne, has taught us anything you can bank on nostalgia. Reruns until the new season lineup.

I feel the same way for anyone who loses their jobs for reasons beyond their control.

That's nice to know.

Good to know I have your sympathy then.

Yeah, the difference is I channeled it into advocacy work for trans people and greater government financing of rural schools. Not welfare for tv personalities. Go fig.

Again, I point to Netflix, how it handled the Kevin Spacey issue. Y'know, someone whose alleged crimes are more severe than foul mouthedness on Twitter, yet the showrunners found a way to keep the show on for at least one more season, which means that the series not only gets closure, but there's cast and crew who have work for a bit longer. Believe me, I'm going to miss Frank Underwood, but in this case, I think this is perhaps the best middle ground Netflix could have had. But scorched earth over tweets, however racist they might be? Not so much.

Also, accidentally deleted this when I was editing... sorry.

Yeah, Kevin Spacey is a piece of shit. It's also a far larger crew with a far larger budget. It's not fair, it's not right, and the industry needs to clean up its act. Might be why I prefer things with smaller studios and smaller budgets in the hopes thatI won't feel guilty monetizing it with my attention.

Also I won't miss the show one iota. I watched 3 episodes and it's shit compared to the BBC classic.

House of Cards is not a reflection of what one ought to do just by fucking existing.

In the same way I might argue that we need better working conditions in an industry after someone is injured and then paid only half wages, and someone pipes up; "Well, yeah, but Chinese workers commit suicide in Apple's slave pits..."

That's not as if an answer, or somehow any less reason for agency.

 

[Hawki]

I think you'll find they were contractually obligated to pay the full amount as negotiated prior in agreements.

Then...re-negotiate it?

Granted, that's not necessarily possible, but we don't know the nature of her contract (far as I know).

Offer per tweet retractions? That's basically paying someone a full time job alone just for Barr.

No, more like an official statement on their website or something similar. Twitter isn't exactly the best places to make announcements.

They didn't ... they repeatedly cautioned her. They repeatedly contacted her. They repeatedly told her why this could land people in hot water.

What next?

Strapping her to a chair, forcibly medicating her? I can't imagine any job with such high stakes that I would ever get such a number of warnings. Any job I have ever had I probably would have been let go if I espoused a vaguest hint of the sheer degree of her garbage.

And with good reason...

I get that, but would you condone people losing their jobs because of you either?

I'm not arguing that those in power should be given special priviliges, but if the extent of disciplinary action was being cautioned, I think you can have a bit more severe action before nuked earth policy.

They cancelled a show ... it ain't the first, won't be the last, and if TV, and Roseanne, has taught us anything you can bank on nostalgia. Reruns until the new season lineup.

It always sucks when shows are cancelled, but usually the reasons for it are stuff like poor ratings, rights issues, etc. The actor being an arse isn't one that usually nukes the series. Johnny Depp is still getting worse for instance.

I feel the same way for anyone who loses their jobs for reasons beyond their control.

That's nice to know.

Yeah, the difference is I channeled it into advocacy work for trans people and greater government financing of rural schools. Not welfare for tv personalities. Go fig.

Except as I hope I've made clear by now, I'm more concerned with people OTHER than Roseanne Barr.

Also, I've done volunteer work as well and still give to charities, so playing the game of good samaritan isn't one I'm interested in.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Then...re-negotiate it?

Granted, that's not necessarily possible, but we don't know the nature of her contract (far as I know).

Or just flat out tell her; "We can't re-book this show if this is how you're going to act."

And I have significant reasons to believe why they would do that. Networks aren't as if some secret morality police, if they can get away with bloody murder they will. They would have calculated it as a business decision to simply not re-book another season.

The problem was not her pay cheque, theproblem was her behaviour *regardless of her pay cheque*.

No, more like an official statement on their website or something similar. Twitter isn't exactly the best places to make announcements.

You're being far too charitable ... Twitter isn't exactly the best place for anything.

I get that, but would you condone people losing their jobs because of you either?

But that's the thing ... I've had people working underneath me. And the sorry state of affairs in the world ... people with authority do awful things that their co-workers have to deal with, if at all get the chance to.

Roseanne Barr isnt an anomaly. People will lose jobs because of her in the same way because of the Royal Commission into the banking sector will also cost innocent people their jobs. People only tangentially related to the activities of corrupt bank administrators, lenders and financial managers.

This is not anomalous.

I'm not arguing that those in power should be given special priviliges, but if the extent of disciplinary action was being cautioned, I think you can have a bit more severe action before nuked earth policy.

Such as? A show got cancelled. Actors should expect the possibility. Inthesame way an actor might not be at fault, but still die. Or retire.

Bruce Campbell shouldn't feel guilty about the fact that there will never be an Ashvs. Evil Dead Season 4 because he decided to retire. That will cost people their jobs. I am 100% certain they could have gotten financing for a Season 4 as it wasn't too heavy on the budget and had a growing cult following. But retirement of Bruce Campbell almost definitely basically cans any idea of Ash Williams ever making a comeback to television screens.

That sucks... but that's life.

It always sucks when shows are cancelled, but usually the reasons for it are stuff like poor ratings, rights issues, etc. The actor being an arse isn't one that usually nukes the series. Johnny Depp is still getting worse for instance.

Well, you know ... actors. Literal drama queens.

I'll take arsehole over bigoted and defamatory however.

Except as I hope I've made clear by now, I'm more concerned with people OTHER than Roseanne Barr.

Also, I've done volunteer work as well and still give to charities, so playing the game of good samaritan isn't one I'm interested in.

That wasn't the point I was making.

The point I was making is it seems a non-issue. It is about as far removed as, say, a car manufacturing plant closure as you can get.

You know what my solution would be? Paying the staff their wages for the full season and putting together a production team in the meantime. The actors get what they were contractually afforded, and they can immediately set work on preparing to push forward the production cycle of whatever nxt new project they had in the works.

That's a structurl problem however ... the Roseanne cancellation need not mean spotty employment andwages for many ... but it does for the same reason other workers find themselves in a similar strait.

 

[Saelune]

Commercially successful by whom? ABC could jeopardise $9 billion of fall advertising. This is particularly true when its viewership is alienated in terms of other projects they've done. This is the thing, why exactly is it ABC firing 100s of people, not Roseanne Barr getting them fired for not living up her claim of quitting Twitter because she couldn't trust herself around it...?

This is kind of all over the place - at the least, I've never heard of these "other projects," and if the ABC is tainted as a whole by Roseanne's comments, then that says more on the people holding it to be 'tainted' than the ABC as a whole.

See, if I was running a new product launch branch of a successful company, and I fuck it up so completely and utterly and the larger parent company shuts us down and torpedoes our contracts, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Your argument comes off as Fountainhead-y without actually questioning the legitimacy of the fact that even the architect is an employee being asked to do a job the way the customer requires/wants.

If we're going into analogies, a better one would be that we have a company with an employee. The employee does something reprehensible and is (justifiably) called out for it. Problem is, every employee under that employee also loses their job by extension.

You could like, blame Roseanne. She didnt have to be a terrible person, she chose to be, and it was her who jeopardized all those people's job.

If people can be fired for being LGBT, then why cant they be fired for being just a bad person?

I do blame Roseanne to the extent of her own actions. It's the ABC's prerogative to do what they want with her. However, believe it or not, I'm iffy about the concept of punishment by association, and the idea that you can't separate art from the artist.

If you want an example of people handling this better than ABC did, look at the Kevin Spacy issue. The charges against him are far worse than racist tweets, but at the least, Netflix managed to move ahead with House of Cards. Its staff and actors didn't have to be out of work because of the lead actor's transgressions. Or, to think of the James Gunn drama, as much as I disagree with Disney's decision to fire him, they at least haven't scrapped Guardians of the Galaxy 3.

House of Cards wasn't called 'Kevin Spacey'.

 

[Hawki]

Roseanne Barr isnt an anomaly. People will lose jobs because of her in the same way because of the Royal Commission into the banking sector will also cost innocent people their jobs. People only tangentially related to the activities of corrupt bank administrators, lenders and financial managers.

This is not anomalous.

Not anomalous, but stuff like fraud is a far cry away from tweeting.

Bruce Campbell shouldn't feel guilty about the fact that there will never be an Ashvs. Evil Dead Season 4 because he decided to retire. That will cost people their jobs. I am 100% certain they could have gotten financing for a Season 4 as it wasn't too heavy on the budget and had a growing cult following. But retirement of Bruce Campbell almost definitely basically cans any idea of Ash Williams ever making a comeback to television screens.

Few things:

1) You could do an Evil Dead story without Ash. It's already been done technically.

2) Presumably the process would be drawn out, so people would have at least forewarning of being potentially out of work.

House of Cards wasn't called 'Kevin Spacey'.

And your point is...?

No, House of Cards isn't called Kevin Spacey/Frank Underwood, so there's a precedent for doing it without the character (same way as Evil Dead technically). But as I've already said, I think Netflix did the best thing it could from the viewpoint of art and employment while also distancing itself from Spacey whose transgressions (if true) go far beyond Roseanne Barr's. In contrast, even if ABC had to deal with Barr herself, I think it could have done it better.

 

[Saelune]

House of Cards wasn't called 'Kevin Spacey'.

And your point is...?

No, House of Cards isn't called Kevin Spacey/Frank Underwood, so there's a precedent for doing it without the character (same way as Evil Dead technically). But as I've already said, I think Netflix did the best thing it could from the viewpoint of art and employment while also distancing itself from Spacey whose transgressions (if true) go far beyond Roseanne Barr's. In contrast, even if ABC had to deal with Barr herself, I think it could have done it better.

My point is, Roseanne the show always had and always would be a stage for Roseanne's own views. Used to be those views were about feminism and the life and issues primarily of a wife and mother in a low income household. Then it didn't. Roseanne being terrible really fucked the show up for ABC and they rightfully said 'Nope' and dropped her. It is Roseanne's and only Roseanne's fault, blame entirely falls on her.


House of Cards and Guardians of the Galaxy were not Spacey's nor Gunn's self-titled political platform.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Not anomalous, but stuff like fraud is a far cry away from tweeting.

Getting fired for abusive, defamatory rants isn't a far cry from reality. In fact it is reality .... everywhere ... often with a hell of a lot more fallout per advent of bad exposure that inevitably ends up poisoning other people's careers.

Few things:

1) You could do an Evil Dead story without Ash. It's already been done technically.

Problem of typecasting (or arguably even so far as lifelong character-typing in terms of Bruce Campbell) is that that is progressively harder to do so.

And the way they ended it is kind of a nail in the coffin.Sure you could retroactively just call the final 5 minutes 'a dream' ... but at that point I feel lke you're spitting at Bruce Campbell's final 'hoo-rah'.

Not to spoil anything, I will more so say that some people are 'owed' their character and the direction of how they wish to end that character's journey. Bruce Campbell became typecast to a very figure of horror legend, and was hard done by the culture of media despite being a fantastic evolution of method acting (fite me, haters) that deserves far more screen presence over movies and televisions than he ever got ... his retirement, and his persona, is owed the finality of his choice to retire.

IMO he owns Ashley Williams. They could have more Evil Dead without him, but I would hope it's more a spin off when he was younger, etc. Don't take his final moment away from him. Which, you know ... is going to require a new cast, regardless, because of that.

It's not the same as Lucy Lawless' Ruby from the same show. I love Lucy Lawless as much as the next sane person should, but Bruce Campbell is Ashley Williams.

Actually, Lucy Lawless and Xena is another thing I could probably point to to sort of elabourate another example of how I feel in another context.

2) Presumably the process would be drawn out, so people would have at least forewarning of being potentially out of work.

True enough but that excuse falls away when even cast members recognized that Barr's constantconflicts withABC were likely not going to get theshow renewed.

More over, as you said, many are being re-billed into a new show. Something that might not have been possible if Roseanne did continue her bizarre attacks on random people got worse and alienated people further, and further drove the show towards poisoning further ABC lineups.

Let's say she got progressively worse (as the case seemed to be) for the entirety of a season .... how about two seasons? ... where reception to her as a whole became a series of litigations just waiting to happen? Well what happens to the cast that seemingly just went with it when in truth they were apalled by her actions as much as the next person?

The fact that they get a clean slate is better than them being dragged into constant interviews to talk about shit that they were not at fault for, and simply remainsilent as not to draw ire, or invite further criticism against ABC, and most likely an ever more toxic workplace and being drilled about it everytime they try to branch outwardly.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I also don?t know how much more real the jokes can get; that?s why they?re good.

You confuse the meaning of "real".

In the clip I posted, Bob joked about another drag queen being a meth addict. Said person would go on to nearly die from overdosing a few months later. In that sense, the joke is true.

But the emotion expressed by the joke is not real, and the audience knows that, partly because the context and format is set up to reinforce that it is not real. The distance I'm talking about is psychological distance from the emotional impact of the joke.

It is very different from me going up to someone at at their child's funeral and talking about how their kid was a loser and how much I hated them and am glad they're dead. It's not fair or reasonable to expect someone to have the emotional distance to find that funny. It's not divorced from that person's real life right now, and that's what I mean by "real?.

Ok, I get what you mean, but the funeral example isn?t even a joke; it?s just pure, crude indecency. Real ?jokes? would be several of these [https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/tv-shows/comedy-central-roast-of-bruce-willis-10-most-brutal-jokes/news-story/5d3addf7c874934d822c5ae75abdee6a] from the actual roast.

I particularly thought the worst was what Martha Stewart said about being surprised back in the 90?s that Dennis Rodman is still alive in 2018, when he was actually contemplating blowing his head off with a shotgun in the Palace of Auburn Hills parking lot back then.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Ok, I get what you mean, but the funeral example isn?t even a joke; it?s just pure, crude indecency. Real ?jokes? would be several of these [https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/tv-shows/comedy-central-roast-of-bruce-willis-10-most-brutal-jokes/news-story/5d3addf7c874934d822c5ae75abdee6a] from the actual roast.

Again, you keep saying you understand this but your examples suggest that you don't.

A roast is a specific comedy space in which you are allowed to say things which would be upsetting if they were used with malicious intent, which would be a "crude indecency" in the wrong context (because the definition of indecency is inherently subjective). That's because the format exists to emotionally distance the audience from the joke. It's the same reason a lot of "edgy humour" TV shows are animated rather than live action. It's not an accident, it's because the non-realistic appearance of animation functions to create emotional distance.

Heck, speaking of animated comedy shows, you're acting like there's some kind of SJW conspiracy to get rid of transgressive humour, but The Simpsons was considered controversial when it released in 1987. Conservatives campaigned against it, Simpsons merchandise was banned in schools, heck, the president used the show as an example of the decay of American family values. Conservative TV audiences of the late 1980s genuinely believed the Simpsons was an example of the moral decay of society and should be banned. I mean, fucking hell.

It would be a decade before South Park appeared and really started the trend of TV comedy shows trying to push the envelope, and those shows were not greeted with open arms. "Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride" in Season 1 attracted controversy and was nearly pulled by Comedy Central because it had gay stuff in it (this was a year before Will & Grace first aired and broke ground for tired insufferable gay stereotypes to be shown on TV in a positive light).

We've gone from an age where Conservatives fought to pull The Simpsons from the air because it didn't function as explicit propaganda for right wing family values, to one in which a comedian of South Asian descent can make a successful and well recieved documentary film about the complex relationship between a racist stereotype and the community it depicts. You think this is a dark time for free speech? You think this is a bad time for transgressive humour? I find that laughable.

 

[CaitSeith]

I do blame Roseanne to the extent of her own actions. It's the ABC's prerogative to do what they want with her. However, believe it or not, I'm iffy about the concept of punishment by association, and the idea that you can't separate art from the artist.

For celebrities, their public image is part of their art. It wouldn't be difficult to separate Roseanne the show from Roseanne the real person, if the real person wasn't constantly calling for atention on the worst and most insistent ways possible: spreading 4chan conspiracy theories (and racist comments) on tweeter. Instead of being a natural act, it becomes a concentrated effort to separate them: "I enjoy this! Oh, advertisement. Let me check my tweet feed. She said WHAT!? Oh, the show continues. I... must... enjoy... this!"

PS: How did we get from trans representation in gaming to Roseanne? She hasn't even been in a game! Isn't she?

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Spoiler

Ok, I get what you mean, but the funeral example isn?t even a joke; it?s just pure, crude indecency. Real ?jokes? would be several of these [https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/tv-shows/comedy-central-roast-of-bruce-willis-10-most-brutal-jokes/news-story/5d3addf7c874934d822c5ae75abdee6a] from the actual roast.

Again, you keep saying you understand this but your examples suggest that you don't.

A roast is a specific comedy space in which you are allowed to say things which would be upsetting if they were used with malicious intent, which would be a "crude indecency" in the wrong context (because the definition of indecency is inherently subjective). That's because the format exists to emotionally distance the audience from the joke. It's the same reason a lot of "edgy humour" TV shows are animated rather than live action. It's not an accident, it's because the non-realistic appearance of animation functions to create emotional distance.

Heck, speaking of animated comedy shows, you're acting like there's some kind of SJW conspiracy to get rid of transgressive humour, but The Simpsons was considered controversial when it released in 1987. Conservatives campaigned against it, Simpsons merchandise was banned in schools, heck, the president used the show as an example of the decay of American family values. Conservative TV audiences of the late 1980s genuinely believed the Simpsons was an example of the moral decay of society and should be banned. I mean, fucking hell.

It would be a decade before South Park appeared and really started the trend of TV comedy shows trying to push the envelope, and those shows were not greeted with open arms. "Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride" in Season 1 attracted controversy and was nearly pulled by Comedy Central because it had gay stuff in it (this was a year before Will & Grace first aired and broke ground for tired insufferable gay stereotypes to be shown on TV in a positive light).

We've gone from an age where Conservatives fought to pull The Simpsons from the air because it didn't function as explicit propaganda for right wing family values, to one in which a comedian of South Asian descent can make a successful and well recieved documentary film about the complex relationship between a racist stereotype and the community it depicts. You think this is a dark time for free speech? You think this is a bad time for transgressive humour? I find that laughable

.

I think there is a difference in understanding of the ethical useage of comedic content in general here, because I thought I clearly acknowledged the basic point in bold over my last several replies. I also never complained about a lack of transgressive humor in recent years; only that I?d be surprised if it lasts much longer (in a mainstream capacity at least) given our current social climate.

It?s also funny you mention the increase of what?s acceptable in entertainment over the last few decades, when the opposite has been occurring in general outside of that specific forum. It?s almost like comedy shows are becoming an oddly acceptable safe haven for all things ?offensive?, disclaimers and all.

 

[Xprimentyl]

PS: How did we get from trans representation in gaming to Roseanne? She hasn't even been in a game! Isn't she?

Y?know, I was wondering the same thing? I wanted to engage in the topic at hand, but as few of my post that get read/responded to, I wasn?t sure if it was even worth my effort to try and re-rail the thread?