Married with Children
-
jriddle73 — 7 years ago(April 19, 2018 05:02 AM)
MARRIED WITH CHILDREN, and it isn't even close. I haven't seen neo-ROSEANNE but the original was terrible–borderline unwatchable. MWC was witty and nutty and anarchistic and could do everything from really intelligent humor to plain old lowbrow fart jokes.
"The Dig"
http://cinemarchaeologist.blogspot.com/ -
Fugazi — 7 years ago(April 19, 2018 05:07 AM)
Roseanne. MWC feels a little edgelord. They remind me of the Gamergate crowd. Just the same tired blonde, woman, etc. jokes. It's not offensive to me at all. It's just boring.
Roseanne feels more real, as someone who grew up in a working class family. They'e not cheap stereotypes, but realistic characters. The mix of comedy and a tiny bit of drama balance the show out. -
ProjectError
— 7 years ago(April 19, 2018 02:34 PM)Look, I love Married…with Children, but there’s no comparison between it and Roseanne. Roseanne is an Emmy-winning show with great writing. They’re on different levels. MwC also lacked continuity between episodes. Roseanne was realistic, McW wasn’t, like the episode where Bud discovered Al has the lowest salary in the world, And how Al would make sexist remarks to his customers about their weight yet never got fired. Roseanne actually dealt with things like job loss and financial struggles where Married with Children tended to ignore it, just focusing on slapstick humor and gags. They didn’t have one serious episode.
MwC had gags like where Kelly was running from tornado, Or when Al would get electrocuted and his whole body would be burned and you’d see his shoes on the ground with smoke coming out of them. You wouldn’t see unrealistic gags like that in Roseanne.
I am addicted to you; I have tasted your mind, and I cannot forgo its flavor. -
Platonic_Caveman — 7 years ago(April 23, 2018 02:45 AM)
"Married with Children" is far better. "Roseanne" tried to get socially conscious too often. We had to delve into the snot-nosed kids' adolescent dilemmas. MWC never took itself too seriously.
"Roseanne" also did the perfunctory lovey dovey scenes between husband and wife. MWC you knew they loved each other but they never felt the need to show it ad nauseum.
Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy -
Bongo — 7 years ago(April 23, 2018 02:59 AM)
IMO, this type of poll would almost always be more valid/fun if it were set up as…
Which show about white trash do you enjoy/like more: Married with Children or Roseanne?
That way all this childish "my pick is better than yours because blah, blah, blah" wouldn't be blowing up all over the place.
Similar polls about music, bands, singers, and singer/songwriters would be better if they were set up the same way.
Apparently, stupid people
don't know
they're stupid. -
Platonic_Caveman — 7 years ago(April 23, 2018 03:04 AM)
I disagree. When you ask which is better it opens up a critique of styles.
If you ask which you enjoy, that's purely subjective and there is no room for analysis. If someone enjoys it they enjoy it, there's no debate about style.
Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy -
Bongo — 7 years ago(April 23, 2018 03:30 AM)
I see what you mean, but people would certainly feel free to say
why
they like their pick over the other.
For instance, "I really laughed hard when seeing Al Bundy's shoes on the ground with smoke coming out of them, but I appreciate the writing in Roseanne that provides a wide range of humor and I picked it as my favorite because of the two shows, I enjoy the way they work in the realistic snarky dialogue in Roseanne more than the slapstick and ridiculous over-the-top humor and situations in the storylines of MWC."
Apparently, stupid people
don't know
they're stupid. -
ProjectError
— 7 years ago(April 23, 2018 03:19 AM)They're not even in the same league. You can't call MwC a show about "white trash" because it never dealt with real issues stemming from being poor.
Roseanne is like Good Times, they both dealt with problems facing poverty the lower middle class, using humor while not drifting away from realism.
MwC is slapstick, Three Stooges style humor.
Al harassed his own customers in his shoe store calling them fat and pigs. Yet he was able to maintain his job.
Peg's mother was so large, Jabba the Hut large, that she made the house shake when she walked, and you only heard her voice offscreen.
Or when Al was driving around his old Dodge to get up to 999,999 miles, to win a new Dodge, only to accidentally reset it back to 0000001 before making it to the dealer.
When Al and his "No'Mam" crew were hanging on the roof to get away from their wives, and a large bird took one of them away because he got to close to his egg. You wouldn't see a cartoon gag like that in Roseanne or Good Times.
The ongoing reoccurring joke that the family never ate. And quite literally, never ate.
Roseanne was a realistic portrayal of a housewife who cooked dinner for her kids every night, and attended parent/teacher conferences, while Peg didn't cook and smoked cigarettes and ate Bon Bons watching Oprah. MwC was going for pure unrealistic silliness except for maybe the early episodes of the first season.
It was referenced that they were "poor" through jokes, but there wasn't any episode where Al pondered how he's going to make the house payment that month. Al would be shown crying paying the bills, while Peg was apathetic and racked up more debt at the department store. Roseanne was at least involved in the family's financial crisis. MwC was reduced to Al being the only one who cared about how broke they were while his stupid wife would be laughing about it.
Kelly was a slut, but her parents never had a serious talk about teen pregnancy. We didn't wonder either.
And MwC lacked continuity. Each episode started a new adventure that lasted 22 minutes. They didn't carry over events from previous episodes that made a storyline like Roseanne did.
I am addicted to you; I have tasted your mind, and I cannot forgo its flavor. -
Platonic_Caveman — 7 years ago(April 23, 2018 03:36 AM)
I'm just not interested in the pretentious attempt at realism. MWC's satire makes the point better and funnier without all the smarmy crap. It's enough I'm expected to watch shows about breeders. Don't make me endure their tedious realism.
Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy -
ProjectError
— 7 years ago(April 23, 2018 04:13 AM)The point of realism in TV/film is to help viewers relate to the characters or events happening and help us cope with our own internal struggles or put focus on a cultural issue from our own perspective. Sometimes this is achieved through symbolism.
The Shape of Water
is a good example of symbolism, which used an (unrealistic) premise about a humanoid fish creature. The woman was a monster to the world because she was mute, but the creature saw her as beautiful because he didn't know she was mute nor understand her muteness was. It dealt with issues pertaining to how beauty is perceived, as well as xenophobia and racism, i.e., "the other."
I wouldn't call MWC a satire. A satire is when a particular viewpoint or act is shown/exaggerated in an attempt to mock/criticize it. A satire would be, for example, if the show was bringing attention to epidemic of sexism by Al calling women sexists names in his shoe store; but it wasn't doing that - it was
encouraging
of those jokes. Die-hard fans of the show took it seriously: they look to Al Bundy, as he was portrayed, as a hero. If it was a satire, it failed hard at being one.
The one satirical character in MwC would be Marcy, as she was the direct opposite to Al, being overly snooty and supercilious, who was opposed to his sexism and fat jokes, but she wasn't portrayed as a normal voice of reason to counter Al's foolishness, she was there to be criticized and be an easy target for the butt of Al Jokes. The show was criticizing her behavior, not Al's or Peggy's. And one reoccurring joke would be him calling her "flat" in regard to her small breasts. Wtf?
All in the Family
was a satire, because the show was mocking the absurdity of Archie Bunker's racist, homophobic, and right-wing views by portraying him as such. When he'd call a black character the n-word, the show wasn't glorifying racism, but sending the message that
people like this exist,
and Archie had supporting characters around him to tell him what he's doing is wrong and give the intended moral message.
But when Peg Bundy never cooked for her kids, the show wasn't sending the message,
lazy uncaring mothers exist and this causes child malnourishment
, it was all straight gag. There is no symbolism or meaningful substance to be found in MwC. It's a straight up gag show.
I am addicted to you; I have tasted your mind, and I cannot forgo its flavor. -
Platonic_Caveman — 7 years ago(April 23, 2018 05:04 AM)
Dude, I'm not a big tv fan to start with. I think it's a pisspoor form of 'cinematic' entertainment as it's driven by profit from commercial sponsors.
Also, when the OP refers to "Roseanne" as "white trash", I beg to differ. They were working class whites. I don't see that as "white trash" and any attempt to do so is the worse form of classism. Since when is the proletariat "trash"?
Now Al Bundy was white trash. That's why I liked the satire on MWC. Shoe salesmen are not proletariat. They're lumpen at best. It was a parody of real American white trash, the wife with big hair and tight stretch pants, the whorish daughter. Though it was exaggerated it spoke to real cultural issues. Again, "Roseanne" took itself too seriously.
What is that cliche where they'll promote a "very special edition of" some sitcom because it features an issue like child molestation or drug abuse? I just don't like a social message driven down my throat in the very bad genre of entertainment called tv sitcoms.
Administrator
"filmboards is a bold experiment in free speech and anarchy"
I GameBoy
