At a time when presidential candidates regularly take policy advice from Joe the Plumber, Dan the Drywall Guy is conspicuously silent.

Twenty years ago this week, “Roseanne,” a TV series about a working-class family facing daily challenges with a blue-collar brand of humor, premiered on ABC. Today, with the state of the economy so bleak, more and more families — like “Roseanne’s” Conner clan — are clipping coupons and forgoing luxuries, making the message of the show perhaps more relevant today than ever.

And yet today it seems as if every character on television is upscale. While wealth is not synonymous with love and security, television has all but abandoned blue-collar characters. Modern-day shows tend to mock the working class and lack the soul that “Roseanne” once expressed so exuberantly.

What happened to shows about people who don’t have Birkin bags or slick luxury cars? The character of Naomi on “90210” seems to have a Chanel bag for every day of the school week. Members of the “Gossip Girl” cast can often be heard click-clacking along Manhattan sidewalks in Christian Louboutin heels.

The argument can be made, of course, that people watch TV as an escape and that they no more expect to step into a pair of Jimmy Choos than they expect snow flurries in Miami in August. Then again, there are Web sites devoted to hunting down clothing and accessories that actors wear in TV and movies. So, are everyday people looking at shows as fantasy — or are they maxing out their credit cards on Gucci sunglasses?

In some ways, the Conners were worse off than many of us. Their dishwasher-less house was a bit of a dump, with mismatched furniture and haphazard decor. They argued over relationships and money, and were fluent in sarcasm.

But the Conners were lucky in other ways. Their house may have been dumpy, but it was cozy and soulful. (Three cheers for the set decorators!) And, at the end of the day (or 30 minutes), they remained a tight-knit family, and their love and sensitivity was something that could not be bought. They didn’t need a Sub-Zero refrigerator to show the world they were a force to be reckoned with. Would it be that today’s TV show characters could do the same.

Source (http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/24/what-happened-to-real-tv-characters/)


http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/050715/94737__roseanne_l.jpg

Roseanne: ''I'm very proud of it. It's more relevant now than it was then. I'm very proud of its timelessness and, you know, the fact that it has a political edge that is even more relevant now than it was then. I'm proud of the fact that it's never gone off the air for 20 years."

They just don't make em like they use to!

I dont think I have ever seen an episode of Roseanne. I always identified with Good Times anyhoo!

Great article. The key, I think, is being able to have shows of different types all together. Escapism is an incredible thing, but so is the idea of seeing things on a show that you would see in your actual life. Both (and all variants in between) can exist at the same time.

The Bundys were also as low-class and crass like the Connors.

You don't see too-many couch-potato slobs anymore on TV.

The Bundys were also as low-class and crass like the Connors.

You don't see too-many couch-potato slobs anymore on TV.
I feel that although the Bundy's were also low-class, they weren't portrayed as intelligent or as real as the Conner's were. Furthermore, Roseanne being the head of the household adds a dynamic not seen in Married With Children.

I feel that although the Bundy's were also low-class, they weren't portrayed as intelligent or as real as the Conner's were. Furthermore, Roseanne being the head of the household adds a dynamic not seen in Married With Children.

Exactly. The Conners were your every-day working family. They resembled middle-American so much back in the 90's, and even more today, which was the point of the article.

The Bundys were just a low-class family, and resembled America very little, nothing like the Conners were.

bundys rocked i did feel bad for Al though he needed to win some conners was ok mostly about same thing but conners lot more conteversal

Exactly. The Conners were your every-day working family. They resembled middle-American so much back in the 90's, and even more today, which was the point of the article.

The Bundys were just a low-class family, and resembled America very little, nothing like the Conners were.
I agree. And like the Conner's, I think the Bunker's (All In The Family) and the Evans' (Good Times) were REAL people with REAL problems. Sure, for the sake of television there were a few things about all three families that would be a little over-the-top at times, but in all, I think they were portrayed as real human beings. All In The Family, Good Times, and Roseanne were shows that often made you think about stuff. Or maybe look at certain things differently.