The "Roaseanne" "Dan's Alive" Explanation Was Lame

Let me preface this by saying that I did not watch the "Roseanne" revival season/series debut last night. I am in principle opposed to revivals or reboots of old shows because it once again betrays Hollywood's lack of originality and creativity.  All we see now in movie theaters especially are remakes of old movies. Christ, how many "Spidermans" have their been in the past 15 years? Hollywood isn't willing to take chances anymore with new franchises to build an audience.  They just rehash old stuff that they feel confident has a built-in audience. Now, in addition to "Will and Grace" and "Roseanne", they're going to be bringing back Murphy Brown.  Enough!  But I digress.  That was all a long-winded way of explaining why I didn't watch "Roseanne" last night.  And from what I'm reading, I'm glad I didn't.  Because they performed quite the narrative stretch to bring back John Goodman's character Dan, who died in the original series that aired back in the 90's.  Turns out, as audiences learned last night, Dan's death was actually just part of a BOOK that Roseanne's character had written. HUH?! First of all, is it really in keeping with Roseanne's character to write a book? And if it were, is that really a reasonable, believable explanation for Dan's original death? That's as cheap a plot ploy as the whole original series being a dream or something (although Newhart did do the whole "dream" concept brilliantly back in the day).  As it stands, I hope the Roseanne "book" writer's plot device is not a forerunner telling us what degree of cleverness and believability we can expect from this "Roseanne" revival.  Hopefully they have something better up their sleeves to justify bringing this show back from the dead.  In the meantime, Hollywood, create something new, will ya'?  I'm tired of leftovers.

Paul and Al

Paul and Al

Want to know more about Paul and Al? Get their official bio, social pages & articles on 94HJY! Read more


Content Goes Here