I'm watching her for the first time on The Talk. I've always been a fan, and I'm enjoying her on The Talk. She seems to be the most authentic woman on the board. So authentic that I would imagine the other women must drive her nuts. Do these ladies get along offscreen? How did they pick this particular group of women?
I wonder if Sara and Melissa are close. Do either of them ever discuss their relationship in interviews?
I'm home sick from work. Let's discuss Sara Gilbert.
|by Anonymous||reply 115||12/12/2012|
Op, reads his posts out loud to his kitty cats before he hits send.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||12/11/2012|
I don't like the show, but it is less irritating than The View, because it takes itself less seriously. That's only because it's obviously the copycat show and doesn't have nearly the same audience. But it doesn't make me want to claw my ears out when it's on, the way the View does. Ellen's a more entertaining celebrity guest show though, and I also think Dr. Phil and Ricki are more entertaining (on good days.)
|by Anonymous||reply 3||12/11/2012|
Her ex is the co-creator of "The New Normal" with Ryan Murphy.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||12/11/2012|
Sara Gilbert is a stage name. That is not her legal name.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||12/11/2012|
what about the shit-bra? why won't she bring up the shit-bra???
|by Anonymous||reply 8||12/11/2012|
Didn't she have an affair with that older lady rocker whose name escapes me? The one from the Pretenders?
|by Anonymous||reply 9||12/11/2012|
She's no glamorous star r5, but the show has made her filthy rich. She "created" it (an obvious View rip-off) and maybe is part owner. Whatever the case, she recently moved into a giant mansion and appears to be loaded to the gills, and it ain't on Roseanne residuals.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||12/11/2012|
Sara Gilbert and Chrissie Hynde had an affair?
|by Anonymous||reply 11||12/11/2012|
No, no she is/was with Linda Perry but I don't know what's going on now.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||12/11/2012|
What's to discuss? She's a lesbo. She's ugly. She talks in an annoying slurred voice. Being unattractive and odd, she got lucky by getting role as an unattractive, odd child on a tv show about an unattracive white trash family. For someone with no looks and talent, she's done very well. Her association with Melissa Gilbert no doubt got her foot in the door. No casting director would have looked at her twice if she wasn't related to her.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||12/11/2012|
So she's not the beauty pageant type. Are there no roles for those without model-looks? And she's good in comedies. Why isn't she in Big Bang anymore? Would it have been too much with her AND that Blossom chick?
|by Anonymous||reply 15||12/11/2012|
She did create the show. She sold it to CBS as a "Mother" show devoted to child rearing and evolevd into "The View 2". She's better now but she took a long time to get comfortable being on camera as herself. She spent her whole life saying ther people's words.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||12/11/2012|
She had plenty of talent and was very funny on Roseanne. It helped of course that they gave her lots of great lines, she was supposed to be the "little Roseanne", but she did deliver them well. And she was even reasonably attractive on Roseanne, still having enough of her youthful cuteness. It has definitely worn off now, and yes I agree she's unattractive, and lucky to be still working (although she made her luck by creating the show.) But her success on Roseanne wasn't a fluke at all, the show's still in syndication, one of the most successful sitcoms ever.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||12/11/2012|
I loved her as Darlene and on the Big Bang Theory.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||12/11/2012|
I don't think she's unattractive at all.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||12/11/2012|
Well nicer hair would help, she had beautiful curly hair on Roseanne.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||12/11/2012|
R13 is right. She's a nutso vegan. Had she not created that show, she would have been fired ages ago. I agree with some of her opinions, when she actually gives them, but she does not belong on a talk show.
She owes her career to her sister, even if she scored The Talk on her own (with a co-creator), she owes a lot to Melissa (and her friends) and the family money.
And yes, it's painful just seeing her.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||12/11/2012|
Darlene Conner was one of the most complex teens ever to be shown on an American sitcom. Sara nailed the role, although I suspect it was tailored to her natural personality. Lecy Goranson, who played the original Becky, has said that Sara would just deliver line after line and get laughs. She was a natural comedienne. I've not seen the talk show, though. I simply can't stand that genre.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||12/11/2012|
Was anybody surprised when she came out as a lesbian?
|by Anonymous||reply 24||12/11/2012|
Please post a photo of your lovely selves, r21 & r23, if you have the balls.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||12/11/2012|
Lesbians hide their crazy well. Deep down they're as nuts as straight women.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||12/11/2012|
She's not ugly, she's mildly pretty.
She's no supermodel, of course, but she was well cast as the hottest babe in the Cal Tech physics department.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||12/11/2012|
Fine, being Melissa's sister helped her get her foot through the door. Now admit the sitcom was a huge success, and it couldn't have been if Sara hadn't played the role well, if she hadn't had the comic ability to deliver they lines correctly. It's not like Melissa is such a great actor that her success dwarfs Sara's. She was no Jodie Foster, even Kristy McNichol kicked her ass winning 2 Emmys (and 2 other nominations) and starring in theatrical features.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||12/11/2012|
[quote]She's not ugly, she's mildly pretty.
No, she's not mildly pretty.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||12/11/2012|
And what would be the point r25? if I was ugly or pretty, how would that make my opinion invalid?
Get out of here r25 if you can't take the opinion of more then one person saying the truth.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||12/11/2012|
Reading this thread has given me my very own vagine.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||12/11/2012|
She's pretty. She also has excellent comedic skills and can do deadpan well.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||12/11/2012|
Sara's partner is Linda Perry from 4 Non-Blondes, who did "What's Goin On," one of the worst songs of all time. It was a huge hit in the early 90s and I wanted to kill myself every time I heard it.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||12/11/2012|
R33, LOL because I absolutely despised that song in the 90s. All the gay clubs played a techno version of it, which was equally heinous. I also wanted to go deaf every single time I heard whatever version of that song was playing. Truly awful.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||12/11/2012|
Yes, I'm sure the sitcom success had nothing to do with Roseanne or John Goodman or Laurie M. or the writers, it was all Sara.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||12/11/2012|
Linda Perry is more than someone from a forgotten one-hit-wonder 90s group, she became a successful producer, probably one of the most successful female producers. She produced a lot of stuff for Pink, she's a good pop-rock producer. So actually it's pretty cool that she's Sara's new partner.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||12/11/2012|
"Lesbians hide their crazy well"
|by Anonymous||reply 37||12/11/2012|
R35, all true, but Sara was a huge part of the show. In fact, the show's decline started when she went part-time to go off to college. Becky leaving didn't ruin the show. Sara stepped up and became the focus. Even Roseanne has publicly acknowledged Sara's contribution to the show's success.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||12/11/2012|
I saw Sara Glibert on one of the L&O franchises in a dramatic role and thought she was fine.I always found her to be a better (and frankly more appealing) actress than Melissa, who I find painful to watch, without much range and she has always had that horrible whiny voice. I think sMelissa probably peaked during the first year or so of LITTLE HOUSE and it was pretty much downhill from then.
Roseanne was always the weak link on her show but smart enough to surround herself with really good actors (save Sandy B who is as two note-adeadpan and rage- as Roseanne). Goodman, Metcalf and later Parsons and even Shelley Winters, (who seemed to erase years of annoying habits whenever she was on as Roseanne's mother). Whatshisname who played Fred (is he gay?) is also a pretty good actor.
I don't think anyone on Datalounge is really THE TALK's target audience. If I am home I forget it is on and have seldom seen a whole episode but compared to some of the other daytime tv I do catch.. Well it's better and more tolerable than THE CHEW.
Why that is still on is beyond me.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||12/11/2012|
[quote]4 Non-Blondes, who did "What's Goin On,"
The song was called "What's Up?"
|by Anonymous||reply 40||12/11/2012|
Straw man r35, no one said it was all Sara, but if she hadn't done well with the part, it would've hurt the show. Christ, anyone familiar with the show knows she was funny as hell and got a ton of laughs, especially when she got older and they gave her more intelligent material. They were writing her lines just as good as Roseanne's, because her role was the "little Roseanne."
|by Anonymous||reply 42||12/11/2012|
R38, the decline wasn't because Sara leaving for goodness sakes. Look at the producing credits and writer credits, look at the change. You will find certain missing pieces that stared its descent.
Roseanne likes Sara,she would never say a word against her. What do you expect?
Sara played her part very well and I love the character of Darlene but don't go over board with giving Sara the success of the sitcom, when there is a big list of others, ahead of her name.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||12/11/2012|
Sara got two Emmy nominations from being on ROSEANNE. She was also nominated for THE TALK this past season.
Melissa hasn't done anything of merit since LITTLE HOUSE, other than being arm candy for attractive men and stealing elections.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||12/11/2012|
[quote]Sara stepped up and became the focus. Even Roseanne has publicly acknowledged Sara's contribution to the show's success.
This reminded me. I was watching "Roseanne" the other day, and was surprised to see that Sara got a "Story By" credit for the episode where Becky and Darlene treat Roseanne to a day at the beauty salon (for a Mother's Day gift) as a way to butter her up so that they could go to an out-of-town concert. That's a really good episode. They really hurt Rosie's feelings when she discovers the truth behind their "gift".
|by Anonymous||reply 45||12/11/2012|
R44 Melissa has an Emmy nomination herself.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||12/11/2012|
R43, I agree there were several reasons for the decline, but Sara not being there full-time was part of it. Also, I never said she was the reason for the success of the show. For sure, Goodman, Metcalf, and Gilbert were all a huge part of the success, as were the writers, producers, etc. Roseanne had the concept but lost her way. In later years, it became let's-complain-about-being-rich. Totally lost her audience. Sad because it really was a great show for about 5 seasons.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||12/11/2012|
[quote]was surprised to see that Sara got a "Story By" credit for the episode where Becky and Darlene treat Roseanne to a day at the beauty salon
That pretty much means that Sara said one day: Hey, what if we had one episode where I and Becky take Roseanne to a beauty salon. And then the writers did the rest.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||12/11/2012|
Not op but yes YOU did r42
"The sitcom was a huge success and it couldn't have been if sara hadn't played the roll well"
|by Anonymous||reply 50||12/11/2012|
It probably goes deeper than that, R49. There's more to that episode than just them taking her to the salon. Sara may have tried something like that on her own mother before, just to get something out of her, the way Becky and Darlene did.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||12/11/2012|
At least Sarah Gilbert grew up nicely. A lot of former child stars go through the ringer as adults.
"The Talk" with Marion Davies, Jr. and her 'pals' is not my cup of tea at all, but Sarah Gilbert seems to have done alright cooking up that show. At least she cooked up a show and not crack like the majority of the child stars back in my day wound up doing (Todd Bridges, anyone?).
|by Anonymous||reply 52||12/11/2012|
How is that incorrect r50, if Sara hadn't played her role well it would have been a lesser success, it might not have succeeded at all. The "little Roseanne" role was as important as any other supporting character, such as Jackie. If Metcalf hadn't played her role well, do you think it would've been such a huge success? I wasn't giving Sara the entire credit, you just read it that way.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||12/11/2012|
I wish I could have been in on the brainstorming when they were thinking about who their fat, black lady would be.
"Nell Carter. Is she available?"
|by Anonymous||reply 54||12/11/2012|
"Well nicer hair would help, she had beautiful curly hair on Roseanne"
FAKE curly hair. I noticed that they tried to glamourize her a bit by giving her the big hair, so it would seem plausible that guys would want to fuck her (it never did). She always gave off such a dykey vibe that it seemed ludicrous that she would be interested in guys at all. And what did guys see in HER? She wasn't much to look at and had an abrasive personality. I thought it was a measure of David's mental instability that he would be so in love with and want to fuck the homely, sarcastic Darlene. It would have made much more sense would have been much more interesting if Darlene had come out as a lesbian.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||12/11/2012|
You need an eye exam, pronto.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||12/11/2012|
Slightly OT, but "Roseanne's" decline was partially due to the fact that Roseanne Barr and Tom Arnold burning bridges with damn near every good writer in Hollywood by their bootcamp tactics for the show writers. Many writers from that era have war stories from being fired from Roseanne for whatever reason. Given the issues Roseanne had to deal with in the first season with the EP Matt Williams and executive meddling, I certainly understand why she felt she needed more control over her vision, but it got downright vicious when she hired Tom Arnold as the EP of the show.
I'll give them credit for finding talented writers such as Joss Whedon, Judd Apatow, and Amy Sherman-Palladino to name a few. But by season 7, they had pretty much ran every decent writer in Hollywood off the set, so they had to hire who they could. Tom Arnold divorced Roseanne around Season 6, but still left enough material up to about the midpoint of season 7. People talk about the final season being the worst, but I observed weakening scripts well before that. As Barr gained more control of the show, it became more about her personal life and feeding her ego. I'm pretty sure the acrimonious divorce left her bitter towards all men and that reflected in the later seasons of the show. The show was a lot more pure before fame got to her and turned her head. The final season in which the Conners won the lottery was a metaphor for the real-life Barr and the change in her lifestyle and earnings after the show became a hit. Hell, she was a housewife for a decade living a lif of anonymity and a stand-up comedian for several years before true fame hit her in her late-thirties. I can imagine that change fucking up the head of the sanest of people let alone Roseanne.
Also, there were decreasing production costs because of Barr's salary, plus Goodman and Metcalf were earning around 400-500K/episode, but these salaries were negotiate when Roseanne was a highly-rated show and ABC had the profits from advertisers paying top dollar for ad space during their airtime. Later on, their salaries took a greater percentage of the budget as the ratings declined and ABC wasn't getting a return on their investment.
I view Roseanne Barr the same way as I view Madonna - confident in their abilities, having that "it" factor, but not the most talented themselves, but very good at finding talented people who made them look good and talented. Laurie Metcalf and John Goodman helpe carry that show just as much, if not more than Sara Gilbert. They were all excellent at being nuanced, complex characters that would've been mere caricatures on lesser shows. Roseanne was truly a slice of real life in many ways before it jumped the shark.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||12/11/2012|
[quote]Sara's partner is Linda Perry from 4 Non-Blondes, who did "What's Goin On," one of the worst songs of all time.
Well her ever popular 1973 hit One Tin Soldier is sort of craptastic so there's that.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||12/11/2012|
R55 - Reportedly, Roseanne Barr wanted to have either Darlene come out as a gay teen (partially due to Sara Gilbert coming out in real life) but the execs at ABC balked when presented with the idea. This was the early 90's after all...Remember the flack they caught for the episode when Roseanne was kissed by a woman. I still remember the hype and controversy from that.
It does seem odd and awkward watching her romantic scenes with Johnny Galecki nowadays.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||12/11/2012|
[quote] It does seem odd and awkward watching her romantic scenes with Johnny Galecki nowadays.
Especially since Johnny Galecki was hot n heavy with his Big Bang co-star Kaley Cuoco.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||12/11/2012|
[quote]Her association with Melissa Gilbert no doubt got her foot in the door.
Probably true, but Sarah turned out to be far more talented than Melissa.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||12/11/2012|
When you really think about it half of all celebrities don't deserve their fame or fortune. It's all due to nepotism, of course, and most people on T.V. aren't the least bit attractive or are even butt-fugly.
Let's name some of the lesser-attractive faces we must endure if we turn on the ol' tit-tube:
Maury Povich Julie Chen Howard Stern Jay Leno Letterman Sara Gilbert Raymond Burr
the list goes on and on...
|by Anonymous||reply 63||12/11/2012|
[quote]And what would be the point [R25]? if I was ugly or pretty, how would that make my opinion invalid?
It has nothing to to with the validity of your so-called point or lack thereof. It's more about you being a gutless creep who will slag someone's looks while hiding under your rock. It's sad you need that explained to you.
[quote] Get out of here [R25] if you can't take the opinion of more then one person saying the truth.
Are you the same silly queen commanding people to vamoose on the W&G thread?
|by Anonymous||reply 64||12/11/2012|
So she's no glamor-puss. She's getting all the high class puss she wants.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||12/11/2012|
FWIW, Roseanne has not only given credit to Metcalf and Goodman helping her with her acting and timing during the first season in 1988-89, but she's said many times that Gilbert helped her a LOT during that time too. She also hired an acting coach too. The differences in her actig between seasons 1 (in which she mostly recycled her comic routines) and 2 are quite stark.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||12/11/2012|
I thought Johnny had more chemistry with Sara than with Kaley.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||12/11/2012|
"Sarah turned out to be far more talented than Melissa"
THAT'S AN UNDERSTATEMENT!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 68||12/11/2012|
Oh, she's cute enough and has her own style. We shouldn't be mean about her lack of glamour.
I think what we're all wondering is why the hell an 'out' lesbian with so much money just regurgitates another boring, stale frau-aimed talk show.
Why couldn't she try something really groundbreaking and unique--oh, right--she loves money more than art.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||12/11/2012|
At least the Fonz produced a show about supernatural events--it was one of the very first, in fact.
Was it "Sightings"?
|by Anonymous||reply 71||12/11/2012|
There's a rabid Sara fanatic here...Who would have thought? A lid for every troll I guess.
@r53 it is incorrect by the reasons a bunch of posts have said already but I don't care about that. The issue is you proclaiming you never said that when in fact you did. You got called out and you didn't expect it. Just accept that you over blew your meaning.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||12/11/2012|
Say, why aren't lesbians more artsy?
I know the poor ones lean that way but get the well-healed dykes together in a room and they just talk about their money.
They're like rich old white men.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||12/11/2012|
R73 They don't sell art supplies at Home Depot.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||12/11/2012|
Sara Gilbert is great example of why gay men are more interesting and daring than gay women, in general.
Gilbert is a highly succesful actress who has all the juice in the world, but can only produce pablum. She has no truly original ideas, and is comfortable being mediocre, or even sub-medicre.
Gilbert is not a threatening persona and is never offensive, just bland, agreeable, and conformist.
I think of many gay men, however, who let it all hang out artistically and pay a terrible price for it.
I only hope that Gilbert gives A LOT to charity because her contribution to society as a gay woman is rather nil.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||12/11/2012|
I always thought Laurie Metcalf was a little dyke-ey.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||12/11/2012|
[quote]I only hope that Gilbert gives A LOT to charity because her contribution to society as a gay woman is rather nil.
Well aren't you something.
What is she supposed to do? Write a great American lesbian novel? Create a "Yes I Am" album for the new millineum? She does what she does and is making a great living doing it. She doesn't hide her sexuality. She also doesn't need to be the Great American Dyke to prove anything to you.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||12/11/2012|
Ok I'll accept that r50, since you're never going to admit you have poor reading comprehension.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||12/11/2012|
R77, Camille Paglia, for all of her miscues, has paid a price for being an artsy dyke who refuses to be bland.
No, Gilbert doesn't have to be an intellectual, we all know she isn't.
But she COULD refuse to be bland, but she won't, because blandness pays the bills.
Furthermore, bland, rich, white lesbians don't challenge anything and aren't helping gay women of color a bit, or poor lesbians, or artsy girls.
They only give a shit about themselves and their bank accounts.
So really, many lesbians aren't any better than rich, white, old men. That's okay, but at least don't go around insisting that lesbians are so much more enlightened when they're not.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||12/11/2012|
Because r50 was ultimately backing me up, I will say r78 that you really do need to type what you mean. You wanted to give too much credit to Sara and that was just incorrect. What you write and what you mean should match.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||12/11/2012|
Don't get upset R81, I don't hate her. No one hates her. She's too boring and unappealing to inspire that much passion.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||12/11/2012|
Her sister is more talented anywhoo and better looking. I know their parents got them in the business. Melissa scored some nice man-ass so good on her--what was his name--Bruce Boxcutter?
Maybe the real story is that such sn unappealing and bland person endures in television becuase of her childhood connections. Whatever.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||12/11/2012|
He actually heavily paraphrased me r80 (I wondered why I'd misspelled "role" as "roll", that was his misspelling.) This is what I wrote in post r28.
"Now admit the sitcom was a huge success, and it couldn't have been if Sara hadn't played the role well, if she hadn't had the comic ability to deliver they lines correctly."
Does that sound like I'm giving her all the credit, or am I saying that the show couldn't have worked without her contribution? It isn't giving Sara too much credit to say the show couldn't have worked if she sucked at playing Darlene.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||12/11/2012|
Oh, and R81, your comment about "raking in the dough" is spot-on. Many lesbians are like this--materialistic and unoriginal.
I stand by my point--it is gay MEN who drive the culture, not lesbians--although there ARE brillinat lesbians out there but they are usually too introverted to suck up to hacks like Gilbert.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||12/11/2012|
Fuck, most of you are disgusting. DL is full of misogynist, self loathing and hypocritical men. If one is a Lesbian, she better be pretty or better yet bitchy? Or she must be producing art on daytime TV? Crazy double standards.
The lowbrow nuttiness never ends here.
Sarah Gilbert did give about the best teenage performance on a sitcom. Tailored to her or not, that was part of what made Roseanne great. They let the dark sarcastic and depressive nature of that character be shown, and Sarah gave it nuances and comedic readings and personal angst that no amount of tailoring can take credit for.
"The Talk" is a slightly less horrible show than the view, but vastly different in how self important they think they are. Sarah was co-creator and put herself, an out lesbian mother on the panel. It is Not art. Duh. But she represents herself well. Plus she is kind of revolutionary for daytime TV, no ?
She is a child star that has found a second career and manages to be herself in a format where most others lose their dignity and sell out their history. She doesn't seem afraid, or desperate like the ladies on the view, or Katie Couric or Anderson Cooper. They have to shovel a lot of unpleasant shit on those daytime sycophantic celebrity worship prize give away, charity chat fests. She lets the more "glamorous" personalities do most of that crap. She is damn smart and cool for the format. She remains true to character, as much as this crap allows. (Only the disturbingly obnoxious Chelsea Handler does so well, letting the others on her show appear as idiots, and then gratuitously calling them idiots - she is one bitchy waitress)
Sarah Gilbert seems to enjoy the other women on that show. (maybe not Osborne) She remains herself, does not hog the spotlight and if she is getting rich, yeah, well she is smart and is still representing. What is the problem ?
Stop with the crap about her hair, or her lipstick. She is doing just fine.
|by Anonymous||reply 86||12/11/2012|
R79 - Stop worshiping celebrities/entertainers and looking to them to be revolutionaries. Problem solved. They're there to make money for whatever entity they work for like a lot of people. The true revolutionaries are not in the mainstream American culture. TPTB make sure of that.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||12/11/2012|
Here's a question I have:
Why in the hell are people so enamored of the fucking Roseanne Show? Geez, you'd think it was something Puccini composed!
Dare I say-it- but it was just another shitty, rude, low-brow American t.v. show. What I hated about it is that it made rudeness and low-culture cool. Roseanne may like to think of herself as some great pioneer but really all she did was dumb down our culture even more.
Fat, uncouth, rude, self-centered and illiterate slobs are not my idea of great television.
I did, however, vote for her for President.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||12/11/2012|
Ew, Sara's eating the pussy of THIS???
|by Anonymous||reply 91||12/11/2012|
[quote]Why in the hell are people so enamored of the fucking Roseanne Show?
Because it was brilliant (at least the first several seasons were). It actually gave you a fourth wall view inside the average American home. It was real, and didn't feel polished for TV, ala the Keatons , the Huxtables or the Seavers. There were clothes on the floor. The kitchen was "normal". The living room looked lived in. The Connor brood could've lived right next door to you. And Roseanne was funny as hell.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||12/11/2012|
I remember when Gilbert did a short stint on "ER", playing a character named Jane (plain Jane, of course.) I remember thinking she should have won an Emmy for Worst Hair on a Semi-Regular Guest Star. Really, her hair was astoundingly awful; they had her in, I guess you call it, sausage curls. Limp sausage curls. REALLY unflattering. I always wondered why the hair stylist did that to her; it looked like a deliberate attempt to make her look as unattractive as possible. Or maybe it was a misguided attempt to make her look more attractive that fell flat, literally.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||12/11/2012|
Roseanne was a funny and realistic account of a working class family.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||12/11/2012|
Mozart was brilliant.
Nina Simone was brilliant.
Tennessee Willimas was brilliant.
I reckon if you think The Roseanne Show is brilliant then yeah, I can see where you have the hots for this Sara Gilbert-Grape chick.
I dislike that show because it embraced rudeness and illiteracy, which does NOT represent all American households, only the majority.
You see, The Roseanne Show had a disdain for gentility because of its caustic star and her personal issues. The Gilbert character you love so much was repulsive, and if I had a rude, entitled, slovenly daughter like that I would have put her in a convent.
Still, I favored Roseanne's stance on single-payer insurance and voted for her for that reason.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||12/11/2012|
What a meltdown r86. You can look down on The View, Anderson, Chelsea etc but Sara is doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. She is pushing the celebrity worship prize giveaways too. Just cause she's bland while doing so doesn't mean she doesn't.
In fact, she tweeted last week about a give away her show is doing, all while talking about celebrity gossip and having guest celebs. Isn't Perez Hilton one of her regular Guest Hosts? It's her job to peddle this shit. Hey, good on her for making money but she isn't above it. She's just like Anderson and the lot.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||12/11/2012|
r95 = Peter, Paul, and MARY!
|by Anonymous||reply 97||12/11/2012|
We know, R95, you hated Roseanne, and you hated Sara Gilbert in it. Guess what? Nobody gives a fuck.
Oh, and it was a brilliant show. The Peabody Award, Emmys, Golden Globes, Peoples Choice Awards and American Comedy Awards it won only attest to that.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||12/11/2012|
Again, I ask:
Sara is eating the pussy of THIS???
|by Anonymous||reply 99||12/11/2012|
R85 please post a list of they gay men that are "driving" the culture. I'm curious to find out what in the world you're talking about. Are we supposed to be proud of our current self involved culture? If you're talking about real heroes they tend to be unglamourous and mostly, relatively anonymous.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||12/11/2012|
Wow, this thread is just filled with pointless bitchery.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||12/11/2012|
My meltdown is more about the criticisms of her because she is a lesbian, and should be somehow more pretty, artistic, witty or full of integrity and talent than the others who do the same gig.
She does fine, and I think that others have sold out more for less. Cooper, Couric and Handler being the worst offenders, unless you think that Whoopie had something to sell out?
|by Anonymous||reply 102||12/11/2012|
I hated the Roseanne Show AND All in the Family. Those shows just started the ruination of the United States.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||12/11/2012|
R96 put it so much better than I could, thank you.
This is a gay site and gay celebrities are reviewed and discussed. If this were the Ladies Home Journal Online Forum it would be different. But gay celebrities are scrutinized here, because they represent gay people to the masses.
When housewives in Texas or the Midwest see an out lesbian they review her whole persona. It's too bad if you deny this or can't accept it. And said cebrity knows this full well.
Gilbert knows that she somehow represents lesbians in America to an extent. She could certainly choose to promote an intelligent and thoughtful discourse to the masses. But she doesn't, because she enjoys her wealth.
All I'm noting is that here, on this GAY website, Gilbert is a hack. She is of no importance or relevance to the gay community BY CHOICE. She promotes mediocrity to maintain her status and lifestyle.
Why is that opinion so outlandish to you?
|by Anonymous||reply 104||12/11/2012|
Well, R102, when you do go out in the world as an out lesbian you would want to put your best foot foward.
Only because everybody's watching.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||12/11/2012|
R104 R105 and and all your other posts...
You are funny and a bit all over the place.
I am not American and therefor never fully understand how any one person represents any group of people. I don't really think that way, and don't believe it is as important to social change as how individuals represent themselves in their day to day lives and interactions. Some public representation and celebrities make a difference, but it is far more a grass roots incremental motion. Yes I am Canadian.
There certainly never seem to be any universally acceptable gay icons on DL, or elsewhere. This need is an American preoccupation.
I am in agreement about Paglia being more worthy of discussion - for all her nuttiness, she certainly has much more to contribute. But she is not on daytime network TV, and never will be. We have to operate within con-structural reality.
You have a post stating who and who isn't brilliant. I leave that up to those who are prone to making such pronouncements. Correct my grammar.
It is silly to discuss Darlene from Roseanne any further if you are throwing around Mozart and Tennessee Williams, and the lesser Nina Simone.
I am a semi poor musician with a black partner, unmarried by choice because we think it is also an obsolete obsession, for gay or straight. Certainly we should all have the choice.
Yet I am curious what you have against white professional lesbians who make money?
|by Anonymous||reply 106||12/12/2012|
Hetero female here and I hated Sara Gilbert on Roseanne and I hated Roseanne the show. I wasn't much older than Darlene but I found her dour and unappealing. Of course I was going through my own angsty bullshit at the time but she didn't remotely strike any chords in me. She's my least favorite character on Big Bang Theory and when the guys refer to her as being hot, well, she must be the only female in the science department.
R59 - Linda Perry was 8 years old in 1973, so she's not responsible for singing or writing "One Tin Soldier" but she DID write "Beautiful" for Christina Aguilera.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||12/12/2012|
Linda Perry always looks like she hasn't bathed in a year.
|by Anonymous||reply 108||12/12/2012|
For those of you keeping track, the character of Darlene on Roseanne is not based on Roseanne herself, but her daughter, Jessica. At the time of starting out, Roseanne had three kids with her first husband: Becky, Jessica and I forget the boys name.
|by Anonymous||reply 109||12/12/2012|
She's a cunt. She said she left the Big Bang Theory because the writing wasn't up to her standards. Like her Emmy winning performance on Roseanne gave us any clues
|by Anonymous||reply 111||12/12/2012|
Who's the idiot who proclaimed Roseanne was the weakest link on the show? She was fabulous, the whole show was created based on her persona & comedy act, how could she be the weakest link? She developed as an actress and the show got better as it went along.
|by Anonymous||reply 112||12/12/2012|
[quote]Who's the idiot who proclaimed Roseanne was the weakest link on the show? She was fabulous, the whole show was created based on her persona & comedy act, how could she be the weakest link? She developed as an actress and the show got better as it went along.
Agreed. She WAS the show, and as the years went along, her acting improved by leaps and bounds. She actually became quite the good actress, able to bring the drama when needed as well as the comedy.
|by Anonymous||reply 113||12/12/2012|
"Oh, and it was a brilliant show."
No, it wasn't. That word "brilliant" gets tossed around entirely too much on Datalounge.
It was a DIFFERENT show. It was a show about an ugly, unlikeable, really fucked up blue collar family. It was considered original and groundbreaking. But "brilliant?" No. It was just something that tv audiences hadn't seen before.
It got more and more ludicrous as it went on. Making Roseanne's mother gay? Darlene pregnant? Have the family win the lottery and live a fantasy life of untold riches? And then at the end it all turns out to be a figment of Roseanne's imagination. Nothing "brilliant" about that. I'd say that was pretty lame.
|by Anonymous||reply 114||12/12/2012|
...the Peabody Award, Emmys, Golden Globes, Peoples Choice Awards and American Comedy Awards "Roseanne" won only attest to its brilliance.
It is your subjective opinion that the show wasn't brilliant. However, many people feel that it was, hence all the accolades it won, years it lasted and imitators it spawned (Brett Butler, etc.).
Just because YOU don't think it was brilliant doesn't mean that it wasn't. Get it?
|by Anonymous||reply 115||12/12/2012|