Current Events > The Conners premiere drops 55% in the ratings from Roseanne!

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://ew.com/tv/2018/10/17/conners-ratings-vs-roseanne/

Failure of a shit show that nobody wants to fuckin watch. They're such scum for even doing it. John Goodman obviously feels bad about doing it now but he should have stood up for his friend in the first place and refused to do it without her.

in during madfoot melty
---

Nice of you to volunteer John Goodman to turn down a starring role on network sitcom.
---

They're scum for firing a nutbag conspiracy theorist who routinely spouted offensive shot on her Twitter?

Yeah, who would have thought that that isn't the woman you want representing your company
---

I and many others apparently didn't even know it did premier yesterday. I'd say this is due to poor advertising, not the show itself.
---

Lmao wait, are you actually comparing the premiere of a show with the start of it's second season? Did you completely ignore the part in the article which points out how it matched the numbers of the finale from last season?

Just lmao, what a failure of a topic
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Lmao wait, are you actually comparing the premiere of a show with the start of it's second season? Did you completely ignore the part in the article which points out how it matched the numbers of the finale from last season?

Just lmao, what a failure of a topic

Uh, it's the first (and only) season of a new show, not the second season.

TheKentster posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Lmao wait, are you actually comparing the premiere of a show with the start of it's second season? Did you completely ignore the part in the article which points out how it matched the numbers of the finale from last season?

Just lmao, what a failure of a topic

Uh, it's the first (and only) season of a new show, not the second season.

Sure it isn't...lmao

Y'all think people buy that technicality bullshit?
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

TheKentster posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Lmao wait, are you actually comparing the premiere of a show with the start of it's second season? Did you completely ignore the part in the article which points out how it matched the numbers of the finale from last season?

Just lmao, what a failure of a topic

Uh, it's the first (and only) season of a new show, not the second season.

Sure it isn't...lmao

Y'all think people buy that technicality bullshit?

Look, either it's The Conners season 1 or it's Roseanne season 11, either way you're wrong.

TheKentster posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

TheKentster posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Lmao wait, are you actually comparing the premiere of a show with the start of it's second season? Did you completely ignore the part in the article which points out how it matched the numbers of the finale from last season?

Just lmao, what a failure of a topic

Uh, it's the first (and only) season of a new show, not the second season.

Sure it isn't...lmao

Y'all think people buy that technicality bullshit?

Look, either it's The Conners season 1 or it's Roseanne season 11, either way you're wrong.

I'm wrong by saying it matched the numbers of the finale of last season? But it did. Your own article says it did.

How is this difficult for you to follow?
---

TheKentster posted...

Look, either it's The Conners season 1 or it's Roseanne season 11, either way you're wrong.

Holy shit, did they just pull a Star Trek?

Just bring in Jeff Bridges and slowly turn it into a Big Lebowski show.
---

TheKentster posted...

https://ew.com/tv/2018/10/17/conners-ratings-vs-roseanne/

Failure of a shit show that nobody wants to fuckin watch. They're such scum for even doing it. John Goodman obviously feels bad about doing it now but he should have stood up for his friend in the first place and refused to do it without her.

He still gets paid for however many episodes it lasts for so meh, it's whatever. Actor's gotta eat. Hope to see him in some good movies after this. He should do some horror.
---

IMDB lists it as The Conners Season 1. So TC is 100% correct.
---

Funbazooka posted...

Hope to see him in some good movies after this.

Anyone know what the Coens are doing next?

I didn't watch any of last season (don't watch much TV) but did watch last night's episode while I did the dishes. I thought John Goodman looked terrible (health-wise). I hope that was make up because his character was suffering emotionally.

I thought it was fine, but the laugh track (or audience?) was terrible. It wasn't funny; the theme was too serious for that. More subdued laughter might have been okay, but it was just obnoxious.
---

Ignoring the Trolls, that's actually pretty good numbers. Especially for a limited series. Now the bigger question is will people return rather than just see how Roseanne died

TC gets triggered over the weirdest shit.
---

CE discussing TV ratings actually hurts my head. The vast, vast, vast majority of broadcast season premiers are down from the premier the season before. Largely because broadcast TV as a whole decreases in viewership year-over-year. Your better comparison is season finales to the subsequent premier. Because that is much better judge of how much you audience you shed over the offseason.

In that regards,The Conners did great. A single tenth of a point drop over the offseason after a very public and messy split with the former title character is actually sort of amazing. They basically retained the entire audience who was still watching at the end of the last season. Furthermore their ratings are overall fantastic for broadcast TV period.

And before people get semantic about this being a new series and thus we need to compare premiers to premiers. This is a show with predominately the same casts, setting, writers, producers, timeslot, and intended audience. You gotta look at its substance in form over fact. It might technically be a new show, but it is effectively a season 2 of the reboot (or season 11 overall).

Now what remains to be seen is how much of this audience will stick around after the premier. This audience could be a flash in the pan, "lets see how Roseanne dies" kind of deal, and the show could tank. But if it can stabalize at even 1.5, this will still be a outright success for ABC.
---

No Roseanne, no watch.
---

Gheb posted...

CE discussing TV ratings actually hurts my head. The vast, vast, vast majority of broadcast season premiers are down from the premier the season before. Largely because broadcast TV as a whole decreases in viewership year-over-year. Your better comparison is season finales to the subsequent premier. Because that is much better judge of how much you audience you shed over the offseason.

In that regards,The Conners did great. A single tenth of a point drop over the offseason after a very public and messy split with the former title character is actually sort of amazing. They basically retained the entire audience who was still watching at the end of the last season. Furthermore their ratings are overall fantastic for broadcast TV period.

And before people get semantic about this being a new series and thus we need to compare premiers to premiers. This is a show with predominately the same casts, setting, writers, producers, timeslot, and intended audience. You gotta look at its substance in form over fact. It might technically be a new show, but it is effectively a season 2 of the reboot (or season 11 overall).

Now what remains to be seen is how much of this audience will stick around after the premier. This audience could be a flash in the pan, "lets see how Roseanne dies" kind of deal, and the show could tank. But if it can stabalize at even 1.5, this will still be a outright success for ABC.

Thats how I feel, like I watched for Roseanne but Ill still watch for Dan. Its stupid to boycott something because of what happened..
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

They're scum for firing a nutbag conspiracy theorist who routinely spouted offensive shot on her Twitter?

Yeah, who would have thought that that isn't the woman you want representing your company

Gotta liberal it up, dont you? She still gets paid. She signed a iron clad contract, but its okay, you can go back to watching your liberal comedians making fun of white people with no repercussions or punishments.
---

Iwin2013 posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

They're scum for firing a nutbag conspiracy theorist who routinely spouted offensive shot on her Twitter?

Yeah, who would have thought that that isn't the woman you want representing your company

Gotta liberal it up, dont you? She still gets paid. She signed a iron clad contract, but its okay, you can go back to watching your liberal comedians making fun of white people with no repercussions or punishments.

rekt
---

Iwin2013 posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

They're scum for firing a nutbag conspiracy theorist who routinely spouted offensive shot on her Twitter?

Yeah, who would have thought that that isn't the woman you want representing your company

Gotta liberal it up, dont you? She still gets paid. She signed a iron clad contract, but its okay, you can go back to watching your liberal comedians making fun of white people with no repercussions or punishments.

Did you miss Disney, the same company who fired Roseanne, firing James Gunn, a very liberal director?

Conservatives being the real snowflakes again.
---

Lol. Yes the ratings are much lower then Roseanne but it was still the highest rated show of the night. Apparently there were people watching Roseanne who generally don't watch prime time TV at all. That is interesting but the show isn't failing without them.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Iwin2013 posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

They're scum for firing a nutbag conspiracy theorist who routinely spouted offensive shot on her Twitter?

Yeah, who would have thought that that isn't the woman you want representing your company

Gotta liberal it up, dont you? She still gets paid. She signed a iron clad contract, but its okay, you can go back to watching your liberal comedians making fun of white people with no repercussions or punishments.

Did you miss Disney, the same company who fired Roseanne, firing James Gunn, a very liberal director?

Conservatives being the real snowflakes again.

Somehow this went over your damn head, lets fucking re-analyze this situation. Firing someone over a rape tweet from years ago isnt the same thing as firing a leftist comedienne over a bad racial joke regardless if they are conservatives or liberals, thats number one. Two, if ANYONE is a fucking snowflake, yall are as on college campuses yall had shock therapy right after the election. Three, your neighborhoods rebuilt yet? Youre welcome. My tax dollars went to what you destroyed.
---

Iwin2013 posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

They're scum for firing a nutbag conspiracy theorist who routinely spouted offensive shot on her Twitter?

Yeah, who would have thought that that isn't the woman you want representing your company

Gotta liberal it up, dont you? She still gets paid. She signed a iron clad contract, but its okay, you can go back to watching your liberal comedians making fun of white people with no repercussions or punishments.

Which shows that conservitives don't even watch prime time TV and just assumes all shows are liberal propaganda pieces. Really the last season of Roseanne wasn't really a conservitives show outside the title character herself.

You were watching a modern sitcom no different from any other sitcom and only pretended it was different because the leading lady was conservitive.
---

Im glad Roseanne is gone & the replacement is failing. Take that Trumpers
---

creativerealms posted...

Iwin2013 posted...

The Great Muta 22 posted...

They're scum for firing a nutbag conspiracy theorist who routinely spouted offensive shot on her Twitter?

Yeah, who would have thought that that isn't the woman you want representing your company

Gotta liberal it up, dont you? She still gets paid. She signed a iron clad contract, but its okay, you can go back to watching your liberal comedians making fun of white people with no repercussions or punishments.

Which shows that conservitives don't even watch TV and just assumes all shows are liberal propaganda pieces. Really the last season of Roseanne wasn't really a conservitives show outside the title character herself.

You were watching a modern sitcom no different from any other sitcom and only pretended it was different because the leading lady was conservitive.

Never said that was the reason that I watched, so very wrong. I watched cause I grew up on Roseanne. I grew up on the show; and watched to actually forget about political bullshit for a second. And just want to be entertained for the sake of being entertained. I dont want to watch something cause someone voted for the same people that I do. Im not that one dimensional...
---

iPhone_7 posted...

Im glad Roseanne is gone & the replacement is failing. Take that Trumpers

Whose the replacement?
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Lmao wait, are you actually comparing the premiere of a show with the start of it's second season? Did you completely ignore the part in the article which points out how it matched the numbers of the finale from last season?

interesting
---