But didn't Goodman's character die from a heart attack before the end of the original run?

I wonder which Becky they expect to have, Lecy Goranson or Sarah Chalke? It might be even funnier if they alternated.

@Knixon said:

But didn't Goodman's character die from a heart attack before the end of the original run?

I wonder which Becky they expect to have, Lecy Goranson or Sarah Chalke? It might be even funnier if they alternated.

Yes, but this is TV--death isn't necessarily permanent.

As for "Becky", I read that they were having both--don't know how it's supposed to play out.

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

As for "Becky", I read that they were having both--don't know how it's supposed to play out.

That might be one of the only things I'd find "funny" about the return. Like maybe, Lecy Goranson plays the "real" character, but in her dreams she's the much-more-attractive Sarah Chalke... Or since girls/women often believe they're less attractive than they really are, perhaps the opposite: Sarah Chalke dreams that she's Lecy Goranson.

And something like that could "explain" the absence of Johnny Galecki: in the "reboot" show, Darlene has a wife (just like Sara Gilbert does), named Davina or something, instead of Galecki playing her husband David. (The idea being that David was always really a girl, but they just showed a guy because Roseanne - or Dan - couldn't believe their daughter was gay...) Or maybe she WAS married to David before, then "came out...."

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

Supposedly the original cast is set to return for an 8 episode run. (I say supposedly because this 'chestnut' has been making the rounds for a few.)

Anyway:

If/When it returns is anyone expecting to see Galecki? Somehow, can’t see CBS allowing a Lead from its top-rated sitcom spending quality time boosting a sitcom on another network—not to mention the (alleged) no-love-loss unrelationship between Chucky and Rosey).

While the new show, if/when it returns, is not on my list of things to do; I would be much more likely to check it out with Galecki in it.

What say you?

---

Considering how well Goodman and Metcalf have done post-Roseanne, they must be making them offers-they-can’t-refuse to get them give it another go.

Ugh why? Oh yeah, MONEY.

This trend of bringing back old shows just to water them down so they pale in comparison to the original is old already.

And I really hated that show😒

I always found it a bit oddly amusing, or amusingly odd or something, that people would complain about how "abusive" Ralph Kramden was to Alice - "To the moon, Alice! To the moon!" - but he never once actually touched her. Meanwhile in the much-praised "modern" Roseanne, in the very first episode she whanged Dan with a frying pan. Continuing after that, she was much worse as a wife than Ralph ever was as a husband.

@Knixon said:

I always found it a bit oddly amusing, or amusingly odd or something, that people would complain about how "abusive" Ralph Kramden was to Alice - "To the moon, Alice! To the moon!" - but he never once actually touched her. Meanwhile in the much-praised "modern" Roseanne, in the very first episode she whanged Dan with a frying pan. Continuing after that, she was much worse as a wife than Ralph ever was as a husband.

It's been so long since I've seen an episode that I really can't remember any times that Roseanne was any more than mouthy. But if we are talking worst tv wives, I'd have to say that Debra Barone of Everybody Loves Raymond and Carrie Heffernan of King of Queens would surely be in the running. Debra never once seemed happy or loving that I can remember (did she EVER smile?), and Carrie actually was physically abusive to Doug - by the end he claimed his nipples were "nothing but scar tissue" from all the damage she had inflicted over the years.

And I cannot stand Ralph Kramden or any other character on The Honeymooners - one of the worst sitcoms of all time. Ralph is as obnoxiously bombastic as they come, and Alice's voice goes through my head like a knife.

I was never a big "Honeymooners" fan either, I never understood the supposed historical significance etc. But it's true that Ralph never actually hit Alice even once. But much-praised Roseanne actually did hit Dan with a pan, even if it was just once. And in the other terms, Roseanne was far more abusive to Dan - and the children - than Ralph was to Alice.

Women are more likely to be abusive just with their voices (although when they do become physically violent, they're more likely to use a weapon rather than just their hands) and other kinds of behavior - passive aggressive, etc - but since (at least some) women seem to claim "emotional abuse" and "psychological abuse" can be "just as bad" - especially over a long period of time - but "it just doesn't leave physical scars," Roseanne doesn't get a pass even if the only time she used a physical weapon was in the very first episode.

@CalabrianQueen said:

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

Supposedly the original cast is set to return for an 8 episode run. (I say supposedly because this 'chestnut' has been making the rounds for a few.)

Anyway:

If/When it returns is anyone expecting to see Galecki? Somehow, can’t see CBS allowing a Lead from its top-rated sitcom spending quality time boosting a sitcom on another network—not to mention the (alleged) no-love-loss unrelationship between Chucky and Rosey).

While the new show, if/when it returns, is not on my list of things to do; I would be much more likely to check it out with Galecki in it.

What say you?

---

Considering how well Goodman and Metcalf have done post-Roseanne, they must be making them offers-they-can’t-refuse to get them give it another go.

Ugh why? Oh yeah, MONEY.

This trend of bringing back old shows just to water them down so they pale in comparison to the original is old already.

And I really hated that show😒

Don't know what I hate the most:

All this trying to breathe new life into long-dead corpses.

OR

That they are all so invariably awful.

As for the show, itself--didn't hate it--started out liking it, in fact. Never really fell out with the show, but, did fall out with her after her screeching, smirking, coochie-grabbing rendition of the National Anthem—so stopped watching. (I’m a big believer is time/place/circumstances).

But, must admit I’m a bit whatever-happen-to-curious. I guess that's the kind of thing they are banking-on to get folks back in front of the TV one-more-time.

@Knixon said:

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

As for "Becky", I read that they were having both--don't know how it's supposed to play out.

That might be one of the only things I'd find "funny" about the return. Like maybe, Lecy Goranson plays the "real" character, but in her dreams she's the much-more-attractive Sarah Chalke... Or since girls/women often believe they're less attractive than they really are, perhaps the opposite: Sarah Chalke dreams that she's Lecy Goranson.

And something like that could "explain" the absence of Johnny Galecki: in the "reboot" show, Darlene has a wife (just like Sara Gilbert does), named Davina or something, instead of Galecki playing her husband David. (The idea being that David was always really a girl, but they just showed a guy because Roseanne - or Dan - couldn't believe their daughter was gay...) Or maybe she WAS married to David before, then "came out...."

"came out"

Since everyone (I mean sane people) is more tolerant now, odds are that Dan and Roseanne are also more open-minded. So, maybe the "time jump" from-end-of-old-to-beginning-of-new will be long enough for Darlene to have jettison David, recognized her true-calling, and found her true soul-mate.

As for the two Beckys!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

@Knixon said:

I was never a big "Honeymooners" fan either, I never understood the supposed historical significance etc. But it's true that Ralph never actually hit Alice even once. But much-praised Roseanne actually did hit Dan with a pan, even if it was just once. And in the other terms, Roseanne was far more abusive to Dan - and the children - than Ralph was to Alice.

Women are more likely to be abusive just with their voices (although when they do become physically violent, they're more likely to use a weapon rather than just their hands) and other kinds of behavior - passive aggressive, etc - but since (at least some) women seem to claim "emotional abuse" and "psychological abuse" can be "just as bad" - especially over a long period of time - but "it just doesn't leave physical scars," Roseanne doesn't get a pass even if the only time she used a physical weapon was in the very first episode.

Abuse of any kind by either sex is unacceptable. I don't know why you feel the need to put those phrases in quotes, when they happen every day. If you think emotional and verbal abuse aren't real and don't do lasting damage, you're very wrong. And I don't give Roseanne or any other sitcom character "a pass" for abuse.

It was just to set off the words. Maybe italics or something would have worked better. But I don't like how this site does that compared to imdb.

@Gothish520 said:

@Knixon said:

I was never a big "Honeymooners" fan either, I never understood the supposed historical significance etc. But it's true that Ralph never actually hit Alice even once. But much-praised Roseanne actually did hit Dan with a pan, even if it was just once. And in the other terms, Roseanne was far more abusive to Dan - and the children - than Ralph was to Alice.

Women are more likely to be abusive just with their voices (although when they do become physically violent, they're more likely to use a weapon rather than just their hands) and other kinds of behavior - passive aggressive, etc - but since (at least some) women seem to claim "emotional abuse" and "psychological abuse" can be "just as bad" - especially over a long period of time - but "it just doesn't leave physical scars," Roseanne doesn't get a pass even if the only time she used a physical weapon was in the very first episode.

Abuse of any kind by either sex is unacceptable. I don't know why you feel the need to put those phrases in quotes, when they happen every day. If you think emotional and verbal abuse aren't real and don't do lasting damage, you're very wrong. And I don't give Roseanne or any other sitcom character "a pass" for abuse.

I think we should take a moment to seperate sitcom abuse for the sake of comedy from real life physical and emotional abuse . No one is protesting Homer Simpson choking out Bart.

However, like you said ,physical and psychological abuse are very real , a serious issue for both men and women. It's unfortunate that abuse men face in relationships is often overlooked because society is more sympathetic toward women; bottom line is the stats are skewed because men don't report abuse at the same rate.

And I do think "knixon" was using those quotes malaciosly but he neglects to understand emotional abuse and psychological abuse are not exclusive to any one sex.

Why claim that I was using quotes "maliciously" (see what I did there? using quotes to point out something that someone else said or wrote?) when my point was that Roseanne was a worse wife than Ralph was a husband, for exactly that reason?

But by all means, let's hear why I did THAT "maliciously" too.

It must make life much easier, to read minds so well. Heck you don't need to read these boards at all, since you already know what everyone is thinking! . . . . . . . .

In fact though, the only thing you know is that you wouldn't have written it the same way, for whatever reasons you might think are important. And that's all.

@Knixon said:

It was just to set off the words. Maybe italics or something would have worked better. But I don't like how this site does that compared to imdb.

Sometimes I do single or double quotes, but I'm never quite sure what to do either. Once I get past bold or italics I'm at a lost about how to emphasize something. Everyone (mostly) seems to hate CAPS. Also wish this site had more choices.

@Knixon said:

Why claim that I was using quotes "maliciously" (see what I did there? using quotes to point out something that someone else said or wrote?) when my point was that Roseanne was a worse wife than Ralph was a husband, for exactly that reason?

But by all means, let's hear why I did THAT "maliciously" too.

It must make life much easier, to read minds so well. Heck you don't need to read these boards at all, since you already know what everyone is thinking! . . . . . . . .

In fact though, the only thing you know is that you wouldn't have written it the same way, for whatever reasons you might think are important. And that's all.

From my perspective, the overall phrasing of the sentences, and putting those particular words in quotes, makes your statements come across as mocking, as if things like emotional and verbal abuse are not legitimate concerns. Just my opinion, but I don't think those words need to be emphasized in order for you to make your point. By putting those particular phrases in quotes, you are effectively saying that anyone who uses the terms to defend their position is being overly dramatic, and that emotional and psychological abuse aren't just as bad as physical abuse. At least, that is the way it came across to me, so apologies if I read too much into it. As for physical vs verbal/psychological abuse, it's all horrible, albeit in different ways. Do I want to get hit with a frying pan? No, of course not. But neither do I want to be mocked, ridiculed, manipulated, constantly told I'm worthless, etc etc. If I had to choose, I'd obviously pick the verbal, since with physical I am in danger of not surviving.

That being said, I don't think Ralph Kramden was actually verbally abusive - he was just a loud-mouthed, obnoxious blowhard. He clearly loved Alice, and she was strong enough to hold her own against his overbearing personality.

Just watched the frying pan scene on Youtube. The scene is funny, Dan totally rolls with it, but I agree that anyone hitting anyone else that hard with a cast iron frying pan is no bueno, unless one is trying to fend off an attacker. But as CQ points out, sitcom violence is not meant to reflect reality. The hope is that the audience, while watching and laughing, also has the good sense to realize that scenes like that should be taken with a "that's so WRONG" grain of salt.