Was The Simpsons always horrendous?

El_Duderino 09

Woke Hogan wrote: »

Pseudo-intellectual, bud. You’re just not very good at analysing TV programmes, pal.

Bud, pal, in consecutive sentences. lol. I'm not your pal, guy.

If I declared it genius I suspect I wouldn't have gotten your critique on my TV analysis.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah, I mean who ever heard of basic human psychology? To answer your question (even though I'm pretty sure you're only pretending to not understand) it's got a lot to do with empathy and making it easy to more strongly feel what the characters are feeling. That's why they make up a narrative to present animal documentaries. They could present raw facts with pictures of animals, or they could weave in a "kitchen sink drama" style narrative to help the viewer connect emotionally with the characters in the documentary.

Lads, just look at what you're doing in the name of defending the Simpsons. Pretending you don't get relatability or relevance as an asset to a piece of art entertainment.

I mean, seriously, you're better than this.

It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia completely busted the myth that you need to be able to relate to a TV show and its characters and dispensed with the notion that a good comedy should have heart. Don’t be so pedestrian in your thinking. And don’t be lashing out at people for pointing out the gaping holes in your premise.

partyguinness

I was an avid Simpsons watcher from day one (Hell I even remember the mon the Tracy Ullman show) but I lost all interest from about 1998/1999 and went through a South Park phase. In fact I don't think I have watched a Simpsons episode this century.

Personally I just lost interest rather than any noticible lapse in quality.

partyguinness

Boliviaperu wrote: »

The reason you lost interest was because of the drop in quality. Watch season 4 and compare to season 11.

Nah..I just lost interest and life got busier. I left it behind when my student days finished. I suppose I grew up.

Lux23

I am watching it from the start, season 1 is a bit meh but season 2 through season 8 are gold. Then it takes a massive dive in quality from Season 9, so it hasn't been great for more than 20 years. Having said that I think there were some excellent episodes made over the last couple of years.

One massive problem for me is that when celebrities originally appeared on the show, they voiced a character and it wasn't a cameo appearance. Then, they started writing episodes that were vehicles for big stars or found some way to shoehorn them in. The Mel Gibson episode springs to mind or when they visit a country it was full of pop culture references. Like why would the average American bump into Tony Blair or JK Rowling at the airport in London?

Flickerfusion

I think with some of the older series you also have to see them in context. They make a lot of subtle (and not so subtle) references to current affairs.

One of the problems at the moment I think is that real life, especially US politics, has be come so bizarre that cartoon political satire doesn't even register anymore.

In some ways, 2020s America feels more like a real life political Simpsons or even South Park episode.

Rothko

Lux23 wrote: »

I am watching it from the start, season 1 is a bit meh but season 2 through season 8 are gold. Then it takes a massive dive in quality from Season 9, so it hasn't been great for more than 20 years. Having said that I think there were some excellent episodes made over the last couple of years.

One massive problem for me is that when celebrities originally appeared on the show, they voiced a character and it wasn't a cameo appearance. Then, they started writing episodes that were vehicles for big stars or found some way to shoehorn them in. The Mel Gibson episode springs to mind or when they visit a country it was full of pop culture references. Like why would the average American bump into Tony Blair or JK Rowling at the airport in London?

I agree with the majority of that but I actually like that Mel Gibson episode.

764dak

Lux23 wrote: »

I am watching it from the start, season 1 is a bit meh but season 2 through season 8 are gold. Then it takes a massive dive in quality from Season 9, so it hasn't been great for more than 20 years. Having said that I think there were some excellent episodes made over the last couple of years.

One massive problem for me is that when celebrities originally appeared on the show, they voiced a character and it wasn't a cameo appearance. Then, they started writing episodes that were vehicles for big stars or found some way to shoehorn them in. The Mel Gibson episode springs to mind or when they visit a country it was full of pop culture references. Like why would the average American bump into Tony Blair or JK Rowling at the airport in London?

Do you watch the Simpsons?

AMGer

The first season wasn’t good, it was a novelty. 91 getting a lot better. 92-95 some of the best TV ever made, started to decline in 96/97 but was still good. 98 was ehhh, I cringe anytime I accidentally stumble upon an episode from 99 onwards.

I remember in 2004 when Futurama was first cancelled, it was how the hell have you cancelled this yet still continue to shovel out Simpson’s episodes?

It’s quite unbelievable that we sit here in 2020 and they are still making the Simpsons.

Those are my thoughts anyway

764dak

AMGer wrote: »

I remember in 2004 when Futurama was first cancelled, it was how the hell have you cancelled this yet still continue to shovel out Simpson’s episodes?

Because people prefer watching the Simpsons.

AMGer

764dak wrote: »

Because people prefer watching the Simpsons.

Futurama was popular aswell back then. Based on the quality of the shows (at the time) Futurama was streets ahead

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

AMGer wrote: »

The first season wasn’t good, it was a novelty. 91 getting a lot better. 92-95 some of the best TV ever made, started to decline in 96/97 but was still good. 98 was ehhh, I cringe anytime I accidentally stumble upon an episode from 99 onwards.

I remember in 2004 when Futurama was first cancelled, it was how the hell have you cancelled this yet still continue to shovel out Simpson’s episodes?

It’s quite unbelievable that we sit here in 2020 and they are still making the Simpsons.

Those are my thoughts anyway

Follow the money. It must not have been lucrative enough.

(Though I don’t subscribe to the idea that Futurama was as good as or better than classic Simpsons as some people claim)

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

valoren wrote: »

With Sky+ all the episodes are available and I've been watching a smattering of episodes with my three and a half year old daughter. She's been picking up on moments where I still laugh out loud and it's as if she's concurrently watching both me and the show trying to determine what's funny. Her current favourites are Milhouse asking Bart what his favourite type of sprinkler is while he present three different options, Homer's "Oh my God!" when he wins the Blimp Ride ticket, Kent Brockman's "Oh the Humanity!" after Barney crashing it, Milhouse getting ejected from the fighter jet "Take that Dr. Sally Waxler!" and Barney stealing (and crashing) the Nasa Jet Pack. She's even been quoting it to my sister in law on the phone to her bemusement e.g. Remember Alf? He's back, in POG form! (Laughs hysterically).

She sarcastically and jokingly said "Simpsons? You couldn't teach her Shakespeare no?". She never watched it, is automatically disparaging of it and thus doesn't grasp how good it was. Brushing it off, I thought, no, if a three and a half year old, whose young enough to appreciates the inane and absurd humour of it, and her forty year old Dad, whose old enough to appreciate the satirical nihilism can share a mutual laugh over a TV show then it's a mark of how great a TV show it is and, in years to come, it will be appreciated in a similar manner as Shakespeare still is today.

Excellent post.

AMGer

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

(Though I don’t subscribe to the idea that Futurama was as good as or better than classic Simpsons as some people claim)

Certainly not as good as the great Simpsons years, I’m not disputing that, but in the years it ran originally (00-04) it was far better than the Simpsons at that time.

Mad_maxx

Watching "barts comet " on c4 ,old classics really show up today's garbage output

Ipso

Flickerfusion wrote: »

I think with some of the older series you also have to see them in context. They make a lot of subtle (and not so subtle) references to current affairs.

One of the problems at the moment I think is that real life, especially US politics, has be come so bizarre that cartoon political satire doesn't even register anymore.

In some ways, 2020s America feels more like a real life political Simpsons or even South Park episode.

The episode where Homer runs for sanitation and the current holder of the role just tells everyone to vote for Homer is a bit similar to the current wave of populism.

764dak

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Watching "barts comet " on c4 ,old classics really show up today's garbage output

Let's see what people on the internet said about it in 1995:

Martin Crim: Tonight's episode was an embarrassment and a
disappointment. If I were trying to get a friend hooked on The
Simpsons, I would never show them that episode. The plot was
extremely lame and contrived. There were a couple funny moments,
but that was all.

Joe Manfre: what the hell? I seem to remember when Simpsons episodes
had plots which related to rather than hopelessly contorting real
life. This continued in the recent trend of episodes being little
more than jokes barely strung together by a thin, unbelievable plot.

Christine Tiplady: This episode was a KLUNKER. No exploration of
characters or real issues; just a wild premise. The Simpsons is
still one of the funniest shows going, but it takes more than that
to make it the truly amazing show it usually is.

David Sobecki: I never thought an episode of the Simpsons could be that
bad. I can honestly say it's the only one I've ever even considered
saying it was into this one today.

John J. Wood: Grade: C+. After a promising start (Bart's prank on
Skinner), this episode treaded downhill fast. Although a hard-to-
fathom storyline was carried well, again most of the jokes were
either flat, stale, or UNclever.

Jon Bigelow: This episode was only mildly amusing. There were some good
gags ("Firing Sidewinder missile", Moe: "Oh, dear God NO!"), but
they were outnumbered by lame ones (superfriends). Homer didn't
have any good lines, either. I'd give this one a "C".

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

764dak wrote: »

Let's see what people on the internet said about it in 1995:

<various reviews>

Those reviews are a whole pile of:



:pac:

Mad_maxx

764dak wrote: »

Let's see what people on the internet said about it in 1995:

the bit where they are sitting on the roof of the house trying to catch a glimpse of the comet and where homer proceeds to explain what will happen , is worth the half hour alone

Ipso

764dak wrote: »

Let's see what people on the internet said about it in 1995:

So the Internet was full of moaners back then, too.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

One thing I really appreciate about this side of the Atlantic is that they know when to end shows. They were adamant that there would be no Father Ted after series three as they were out of ideas. Ricky Gervais was done with The Office after two series, even though it had started to become really popular and could have got the ratings had it continued for a while longer. Fawlty Towers had, what, twelve episodes? Yes Minister - three series. In the US, as long as it’s making money, the show goes on. On the networks anyway. The good cable shows tend to have a bit more cop on.

Homelander

I often wonder about The Simpsons in its current form - the target audience, who watches, and if they're watching because meh, it's easy watching, or they genuinely believe it's good?

I haven't watched Simpsons since about Season 20, and even that wasn't easy to get through. I can't really believe the general audience believes it's good when the audience scores are so weak.

Is it just a case of "ah, it's comfortably familiar and a harmless way to pass 30 minutes"?

I suppose I could say the same about Family Guy or American Dad at this point. I've watched the first 10 odd seasons of both and they're reasonably good, but everything after is more "background" viewing than essential, invested viewing.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Homelander wrote: »

I often wonder about The Simpsons in its current form - the target audience, who watches, and if they're watching because meh, it's easy watching, or they genuinely believe it's good?

I haven't watched Simpsons since about Season 20, and even that wasn't easy to get through. I can't really believe the general audience believes it's good when the audience scores are so weak.

Is it just a case of "ah, it's comfortably familiar and a harmless way to pass 30 minutes"?

I suppose I could say the same about Family Guy or American Dad at this point. I've watched the first 10 odd seasons of both and they're reasonably good, but everything after is more "background" viewing than essential, invested viewing.

How did you watch it for so long? Series 10 and 11 had some decent episodes (though still very far from the quality of the classic era) but after that - nah.

Earthhorse

I read an article recently that noted a recent season (not sure which) had actual received high ratings from critics; as high as the old days. I was always curious to watch that season and see if indeed the quality had improved but never curious enough to actually do it.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ziedth wrote: »

I have always said that to if you skipped a handful of episodes in season 1 (Finding its feet to be fair) and finished with season 11 you almost have the perfect show with only maybe half a dozen poor episodes, obviously all the best ones and the majority of the "good" ones. Behind the Laughter would have been a very good Series Finale too.

Yes, it totally would have been! :eek: It's in a 'meh' season but is a really funny episode.

Strumms

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

One thing I really appreciate about this side of the Atlantic is that they know when to end shows. They were adamant that there would be no Father Ted after series three as they were out of ideas. Ricky Gervais was done with The Office after two series, even though it had started to become really popular and could have got the ratings had it continued for a while longer. Fawlty Towers had, what, twelve episodes? Yes Minister - three series. In the US, as long as it’s making money, the show goes on. On the networks anyway. The good cable shows tend to have a bit more cop on.

I wonder had Dermot Morgan not passed away would he, Graham Linehan and
Arthur Mathews have wanted to maybe in the intervening 22 years at some point .. bowed to pressure and done another series or a special or two ? There would have been pressure to certainly..

Lots of products can be making money but quality is important, legacy is important. I’d in a way like to think they wouldn’t, either way it’s hypothetical...

partyguinness

Any mention of the film which was a pile of crap.

It had defo lost its soul by then/

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Strumms wrote: »

I wonder had Dermot Morgan not passed away would he, Graham Linehan and
Arthur Mathews have wanted to maybe in the intervening 22 years at some point .. bowed to pressure and done another series or a special or two ? There would have been pressure to certainly..

Lots of products can be making money but quality is important, legacy is important. I’d in a way like to think they wouldn’t, either way it’s hypothetical...

They were pretty firm in the commentary about it being over after the third season. And of course, Linehan is a persona non grata now with some people not even acknowledging his role in Father Ted’s creation. :rolleyes:

mojesius

It went downhill for me from the Sherry Bobbins episode onwards.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

valoren wrote: »

With Sky+ all the episodes are available and I've been watching a smattering of episodes with my three and a half year old daughter. She's been picking up on moments where I still laugh out loud and it's as if she's concurrently watching both me and the show trying to determine what's funny. Her current favourites are Milhouse asking Bart what his favourite type of sprinkler is while he present three different options, Homer's "Oh my God!" when he wins the Blimp Ride ticket, Kent Brockman's "Oh the Humanity!" after Barney crashing it, Milhouse getting ejected from the fighter jet "Take that Dr. Sally Waxler!" and Barney stealing (and crashing) the Nasa Jet Pack. She's even been quoting it to my sister in law on the phone to her bemusement e.g. Remember Alf? He's back, in POG form! (Laughs hysterically).

She sarcastically and jokingly said "Simpsons? You couldn't teach her Shakespeare no?". She never watched it, is automatically disparaging of it and thus doesn't grasp how good it was. Brushing it off, I thought, no, if a three and a half year old, whose young enough to appreciate the inane and absurd humour of it, and her forty year old Dad, whose old enough to appreciate the satirical nihilism of it can share a mutual laugh together over a TV show then it's a mark of how great a TV show it is and, in years to come, it will be appreciated in a similar manner as Shakespeare still is today.

A lot of people who never watched it, or only saw recent episodes, assume it's a really stupid show.