Was The Simpsons always horrendous?

Homelander · 27-05-2020 12:36am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Old Simpsons don't attract new audiences. That alone should tell you a lot. Good show back in the day but totally irrelevant to today. That's where nostalgia kicks in to boost it up to "insanely high quality" in your estimation. Losing relevance is a fairly big drag on its reputation.

Good (maybe great) for its time but didn't age with relevance.

It tells nothing.

Again, that's like claiming Citizen Kane or The Godfather are crap movies because modern audiences aren't watching them.

Honestly, just give up.

Dravokivich · 27-05-2020 12:38am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The regret audience was pretty much everybody? Ah here, there's some mental gymnastics going on here. I'll bet they made that show with you as a target demographic at the time and you're taking absolutely no account of that.

It's like when people look at shows for young people when they were the target demographic and compare them to shows for children today (and they're no longer the target demographic) and decide that children's shows today are crap. It's basically a good dollop of nostalgia crossed with the fact that the art was made specifically for you in your stage of development and stage of life.

Made the show with everyone as a target demographic. Ah lads.

You should try comparing thundercats to thindercats roar. Whatever about animation style, the content of the stories is completely lost.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 27-05-2020 12:44am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The regret audience was pretty much everybody? Ah here, there's some mental gymnastics going on here. I'll bet they made that show with you as a target demographic at the time and you're taking absolutely no account of that.

It's like when people look at shows for young people when they were the target demographic and compare them to shows for children today (and they're no longer the target demographic) and decide that children's shows today are crap. It's basically a good dollop of nostalgia crossed with the fact that the art was made specifically for you in your stage of development and stage of life.

Made the show with everyone as a target demographic. Ah lads.

Yes. The show appealed to children and adults. I had younger relations who loved the slapstick and bright colours. Then amongst my family, friends and acquaintances, the fans that appreciated the comedy were adults of all ages and gender (save for maybe 65+) as well as teenagers. And I doubt me and my circle were in any way unusual.

Mental gymnastics? What on earth are you talking about?

You’re very wrong-headed here. You won’t back down of course, but you’re completely misguided.

You lost the plot at the point that you said that liking old shows comes down to nostalgia rather than some of them just being good. And talking about “relevance” and “target demographics”. Ugh. That’s focus group thinking, which produces the worst art. Please never attempt to make a comedy show.

fatknacker · 27-05-2020 1:03am

For no reason axed Apu

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 27-05-2020 1:11am

fatknacker wrote: »

For no reason axed Apu

I sang that in my head.

Whatever about The Simpsons being terrible now, I'm glad they didn’t bow to pressure and get rid of Apu. That furore made no sense to me. Of course he’s a stereotype. That’s the point. The show is packed with stereotypes.

Rothko · 27-05-2020 2:13am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Old Simpsons don't attract new audiences. That alone should tell you a lot. Good show back in the day but totally irrelevant to today. That's where nostalgia kicks in to boost it up to "insanely high quality" in your estimation. Losing relevance is a fairly big drag on its reputation.

Good (maybe great) for its time but didn't age with relevance.

Simply not true

Duffy the Vampire Slayer · 27-05-2020 2:20am

Ekerot wrote: »

Besides watching clips on Youtube I haven't watched an episode of the Simpsons in well over 10 years now. Don't know anyone who does either, although I hear it's still big in South America even today./QUOTE]

It helps that the Latin American dub is very high quality.

Strumms · 27-05-2020 2:27am

fatknacker wrote: »

For no reason axed Apu

Don’t think he’s been axed officially but Hank Azaria won’t be voicing him going forward. From what I’m reading with Azaria they are potentially looking for an Indian voice actor to portray him :rolleyes: at this rate they’ll need to make sure the actor has a mustache and works in a convenience store too. Because good help us having an actor play someone who isn’t them or from their background or demographic is mental and offensive apparently...

If I was an actor and asked to portray an Italian gangster, could I refuse unless all attempts are made to find somebody in Dublin who is.. an actor, Italian and also a gangster ?

Flickerfusion · 27-05-2020 2:41am

It was excellent back in the day but it's more or less being asset sweated at this stage.

FGR · 27-05-2020 2:52am

My most consistent reminder of the decline of the Simpsons is when characters had to loudly announce the name of the guest star.

Also - the unintentionally cringeworthy scenes where they try to make said celebs look 'cool' like the nsync introduction where they dance into the scene.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 27-05-2020 3:53am

FGR wrote: »

My most consistent reminder of the decline of the Simpsons is when characters had to loudly announce the name of the guest star.

Also - the unintentionally cringeworthy scenes where they try to make said celebs look 'cool' like the nsync introduction where they dance into the scene.

4-F6144-C7-F862-42-C0-967-F-EF627786-F921.jpg?dl=1

Quantum Erasure · 27-05-2020 4:39am

Strumms wrote: »

Don’t think he’s been axed officially but Hank Azaria won’t be voicing him going forward. From what I’m reading with Azaria they are potentially looking for an Indian voice actor to portray him :rolleyes:

like an American Indian?

Quantum Erasure · 27-05-2020 4:41am

BailMeOut wrote: »

S1:E1 is the best eposide IMO (Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire)

went downhill from that, they should have quit while they were ahead

PommieBast · 27-05-2020 5:59am

Watched it a lot on Sky in the mid-late 1990s but then pretty much stopped watching any TV while at Uni. In hindsight good timing..

El_Duderino 09 · 27-05-2020 10:06am

riffmongous wrote: »

If I understand you right, I totally disagree. Have a look at the Ireland Simpsons Fans page on Facebook and you'll see a lot of the people there are pretty young, like still in school/ university young. They would have been born well after the best series were made

You looked on a Facebook page and found some young people. That's similar to saying you looked in an ICA meeting and found some old people.

I would be pretty confident saying that most of the Simpsons viewers are older people watching out of nostalgia rather than young oeople in school.

P.S. how did you know their ages and that they were still in school or uni?

El_Duderino 09 · 27-05-2020 10:09am

Homelander wrote: »

It tells nothing.

Again, that's like claiming Citizen Kane or The Godfather are crap movies because modern audiences aren't watching them.

Honestly, just give up.

I didn't claim old Simpsons are crap.
Maybe you should give up, or just read the post before responding. Either way.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-05-2020 10:13am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yes. The show appealed to children and adults. I had younger relations who loved the slapstick and bright colours. Then amongst my family, friends and acquaintances, the fans that appreciated the comedy were adults of all ages and gender (save for maybe 65+) as well as teenagers. And I doubt me and my circle were in any way unusual.

Mental gymnastics? What on earth are you talking about?

You’re very wrong-headed here. You won’t back down of course, but you’re completely misguided.

You lost the plot at the point that you said that liking old shows comes down to nostalgia rather than some of them just being good. And talking about “relevance” and “target demographics”. Ugh. That’s focus group thinking, which produces the worst art. Please never attempt to make a comedy show.

I said (a few times) that it was novel and innovative at the time when it was first aired. The notion that it's target audience was "everybody" is silly and pretty well captures the influence of nostalgia on some people's memories

El_Duderino 09 · 27-05-2020 10:20am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I sang that in my head.

Whatever about The Simpsons being terrible now, I'm glad they didn’t bow to pressure and get rid of Apu. That furore made no sense to me. Of course he’s a stereotype. That’s the point. The show is packed with stereotypes.

Yeah buy it's a stale stereotype. That's a problem with the show not changing for 30 years. Not only does it become stale but the world changes around the show and it no longer represents the world - no longer relevant.

They made the same joke about the Indians owning shops for 30 years. How could it still be funny?

Maybe doing the Indian accent was a good joke, back in the late 80s, and got big laughs. But now it's not really as funny anymore. But people who probably don't even watch the show anymore get cross when they try to modernise and innovate (two of the qualities that made the show good to begin with)

El_Duderino 09 · 27-05-2020 10:30am

Boliviaperu wrote: »

What do you mean by "relevant"?

I mean it in the completely normal way. I mean reflecting the modern world. Some shows are set in their time and as time moves on, the show doesn't reflect the world any longer.

Keeping the same jokes for 30 years is bound to have that effect.

Homelander · 27-05-2020 10:42am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You looked on a Facebook page and found some young people. That's similar to saying you looked in an ICA meeting and found some old people.

No, he specifically mentioned a Facebook group comprised almost entirely of a younger demography who are almost exclusively focused on earlier seasons of The Simpsons.

You know it's OK sometimes to just admit you're wrong rather than continue these fairly pitiful mental gymnastics.

At this point you're basically attempting to argue that 1+1 doesn't necessarily equal 2.

randd1 · 27-05-2020 10:45am

I was watching a youtube video a while back about the fall of The Simpsons made by a fan of the show. He went through how there were certain unwritten rules to the show's writing.

A big joke would have 4 stages in it, the base material of the joke, the build up to an event, the event, and then the punchline. That was to be interspersed with satirical one-liners or hidden gags that were deliberately thought out for a particular scene, such as funny signs or noted quips.

The characters were supposed to be fleshed out and have many layers to them, Homer was meant to be dim but not completely braindead like he is now, Bart was a tear away but fundamentally a good kid and Marge and Lisa were meant to be the ones that kept the Homer and Bart from being excessive.

Another rule was that the Simpsons were to create bespoke characters for celebrity guest appearances, such as Homers brother Herb.

Once the earlier writers of show had left around season 8/9, those rules came to be replaced by as many one-liners as possible or poor spoofs of films or popular culture for the jokes, the characters themselves became one dimensional and excessively over the top in their behaviour, and the celebrity guests played themselves, which stunted the scope of what they could say or do, ultimately just wasting screen time bar the odd good joke.

At this stage they're simply flogging the maggoty corpse of the horse.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-05-2020 10:52am

Boliviaperu wrote: »

I would regard classic Simpsons as relevant, the purpose of the show is to be entertaining and funny, which it still is therefore it's relevant.

There is absolutely no need for a show to be set in the modern world for it to be entertaining and funny.

Game of Thrones was set in a fantasy setting and time, yet many people found it entertaining. Ergo it was relevant.

Well, you've just changed 'relevant' to mean entertaining and funny. I was pretty clear in using relevance in the completely normal way to mean that it reflects the modern world (not necessarily directly but often by analogy).

I'm not sure GoT is relevant, But it was entertaining. It had some interesting themes around slavery and transition of power. Not sure those were the hot topics of the 2010s. But love and betrayal are pretty constant throughout time. It was entertaining if nothing else.

An example of a relevant episode of the Simpsons is the Lisa needs braces one. It's about a labour struggle and workers losing benefits because of the thread of automation. That stands as relevant back then and now.

Jokes like the Indian shop owner, are not relevant anymore. I don't think a joke that they've been making consistently for 30years, is likely to be funny anymore either.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-05-2020 10:55am

Homelander wrote: »

No, he specifically mentioned a Facebook group comprised almost entirely of a younger demography who are almost exclusively focused on earlier seasons of The Simpsons.

You know it's OK sometimes to just admit you're wrong rather than continue these fairly pitiful mental gymnastics.

At this point you're basically attempting to argue that 1+1 doesn't necessarily equal 2.

Ah here, looking up a Facebook group on something is likely to only find young people. That doesn't prove as much as they seem to think it does.

But it seems you're misremembering what they actually said about the Facebook page anyway. They said "lot of the people there are pretty young, like still in school/ university young". So you've exaggerated the claim.

Lads, nostalgia for the Simpsons does strange things to some people's memories.

Homelander · 27-05-2020 11:03am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah here, looking up a Facebook group on something is likely to only find young people. That doesn't prove as much as they seem to think it does.

But it seems you're misremembering what they actually said about the Facebook page anyway. They said "lot of the people there are pretty young, like still in school/ university young". So you've exaggerated the claim.

Lads, nostalgia for the Simpsons does strange things to some people's memories.

Is there a particular reason you've now twice ignored the actual point?

The young people in question, are particularly - in fact almost exclusively - focused on the first ten odd seasons of The Simpsons.

Could it be that's because they're just universally accepted as being just...you know, really good?

As reflected in critical and audience scores?

Or could it be some sort of nostalgic conspiracy....

El_Duderino 09 · 27-05-2020 11:14am

Homelander wrote: »

Is there a particular reason you've now twice ignored the actual point?

The young people in question, are particularly - in fact almost exclusively - focused on the first ten odd seasons of The Simpsons.

Could it be that's because they're just universally accepted as being just...you know, really good?

As reflected in critical and audience scores?

Or could it be some sort of nostalgic conspiracy....

Oh sure. the first ones are better than the last ones. No doubt about that.

Not a nostalgic conspiracy. Just a trick nostalgia plays on the mind. Don't worry, it happens in all walks of life. The summers holidays were always sunny, the soccer was great back then, the Simpsons episodes were genius.

The Simpsons were good alright. Innovative and novel way of telling stories. Then it got stale and now it's old hat.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 27-05-2020 11:17am

Homelander wrote: »

No, he specifically mentioned a Facebook group comprised almost entirely of a younger demography who are almost exclusively focused on earlier seasons of The Simpsons.

You know it's OK sometimes to just admit you're wrong rather than continue these fairly pitiful mental gymnastics.

At this point you're basically attempting to argue that 1+1 doesn't necessarily equal 2.

Hahahahahahaha, no. That will never happen with that particular poster.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 27-05-2020 11:19am

Boliviaperu wrote: »

A tv show doesn't have to have similar themes to those in your own life for it to be entertaining.

If relevant doesn't mean entertaining and funny then why is "relevant" relevant? Why does a tv show have to relate to a viewers life, that's just narcissistic to be only interested in themes which are relevant to your own life.

The only thing that matters is whether the show is entertaining and enjoyable to watch, your definition of "relevant" is irrelevant.

I totally agree. Why do shows have to relate to people? I watch shows to be shown things I am not familiar with or to be enlightened or to just be entertained.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-05-2020 11:20am

Boliviaperu wrote: »

A tv show doesn't have to have similar themes to those in your own life for it to be entertaining.

If relevant doesn't mean entertaining and funny then why is "relevant" relevant? Why does a tv show have to relate to a viewers life, that's just narcissistic to be only interested in themes which are relevant to your own life.

The only thing that matters is whether the show is entertaining and enjoyable to watch, your definition of "relevant" is irrelevant.

Yeah, relevant and entertaining are two different things. That's why I distinguished between GoT being entertaining but not particularly relevant.

I'm not sure why you want to redefine relevant to mean entertaining. We already have a word to describe a show that's entertaining - entertaining. Is it the fact that Simpsons isn't relevant anymore that has made you want to redefine the term to mean entertaining?

A show can be entertaining and relevant, that makes it better than a show being entertaining and not relevant or relevant and not entertaining. Ah lads, you know this stuff already. Pretending to not understand the concept of relevance is a low point.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-05-2020 11:28am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I totally agree. Why do shows have to relate to people?...

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.

ziedth · 27-05-2020 11:29am

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.

Woke Hogan · 27-05-2020 11:41am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Relevant to the modern world. It's stuck in its time. Hasn't aged with relevance to today.

Look what happened when they reacted to how the world has changed since the late 80s by removing the Apu character. The Simpson fans didn't like the idea of the show modernising. And to be fair, it largely hasn't modernising and that's one of the reasons so few people watching it. It's a show coasting on nostalgia and brand recognition now.

You keep throwing that word “relevant” out like it’s relevant. Any programme made in the past would be strictly of its time anyway and it can only reflect on the time it was made. What are you expecting, that for a programme to still be considered any good in the future it somehow has to predict the shifts in attitudes towards people’s tastes and prejudices?

Why would episodes of a programme made in the mid 90s need to be “relevant” (by your own arbitrary definition of that word) for them still to be considered good anyway? Hamlet isn’t “relevant.” Citizen Kane isn’t “relevant.” Goodfellas isn’t “relevant.”

valoren · 27-05-2020 11:46am

Boliviaperu wrote: »

Classic Simpsons are timeless, the writing is intelligent and brilliant, that will still be the case in 1000 years.

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.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-05-2020 11:50am

Boliviaperu wrote: »

I think that poster has a disdain for the past, very strange indeed.

Distain for the past? No. I just don't have the same strange reverence for it that some people seem to show.

Boliviaperu wrote: »

Only if you are narcissistic must is this "relevance" you speak of so important.

Not only if you are narcissistic. Relevance, relatability are basic building components of empathy - which is quite separate from narcissism. But look, if you're pretending not to understand what relevance has to do with art entertainment and storytelling, then there's absolutely no point trying to explain terms like narcissism and empathy.

B.A._Baracus · 27-05-2020 11:52am

The Simpsons was great and it should be remembered for being one of the greatest of all time. It's still just worth too much money to cancel.

That said the day The Simpsons will end is when a core cast member dies.

Captain Red Beard · 27-05-2020 11:56am

Aurora borealis.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-05-2020 11:59am

Woke Hogan wrote: »

You keep throwing that word “relevant” out like it’s relevant. Any programme made in the past would be strictly of its time anyway and it can only reflect on the time it was made. What are you expecting, that for a programme to still be considered any good in the future it somehow has to predict the shifts in attitudes towards people’s tastes and prejudices?

Why would episodes of a programme made in the mid 90s need to be “relevant” (by your own arbitrary definition of that word) for them still to be considered good anyway? Hamlet isn’t “relevant.” Citizen Kane isn’t “relevant.” Goodfellas isn’t “relevant.”

Hamlet? Revenge, politics, religion. always relevant.
Goodfellas? Power structures in crime organisations, loyalty, betrayal revenge. Pretty relevant.
Citizen Kane? Love, power, class. All relevant themes. Love and power are timeless themes.

You can argue those stories aren't relevant if you like, I wouldn't make that argument. Some themes persist for longer than others.

Lads, the Simpsons was good back in the day. It was a cool new way to tell stories and it was even edgy back then. Now it's old hat.

There's nothing wrong with things being good then becoming old hat. It's fascinating to see it evoke such strong emotions in people though.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-05-2020 12:04pm

Boliviaperu wrote: »

If you can't relate to classic simpsons as a human being that's unfortunate.

Ha. A minute ago relatability was only for narcissists...

Boliviaperu wrote: »

Only if you are narcissistic must is this "relevance" you speak of so important.

Imagine doing a 180 degree turn so readily just for the sake of a story from 30 years ago. Why are you so invested in this show that you'd make these two contradictory statements in such a short period of time?

It's just an amusing story. It's not worth getting cross about

briany · 27-05-2020 12:05pm

Frank Grimes. Or, 'Grimey', as he liked to be called...

El_Duderino 09 · 27-05-2020 12:07pm

Boliviaperu wrote: »

My suspicions were correct, relevant means cool in your head.

Timeless quality is far more worthy of of people's interest than what is cool. Most people realise that when they finish puberty.

Relevance means cool? No, it doesn't, it has an established meaning. You did this earlier when you tried to change relevance to mean "entertaining and funny"

I've told you what relevance means. I'm just going by the completely normal usage. No need to be too creative about it. Just the normal meaning of the term relevance. The meaning that you'd understand if we weren't talking about the Simpsons.

B.A._Baracus · 27-05-2020 12:09pm

Not that anyone truly knows but the man himself, his wife and or his bank manager :pac: but it's believed that Matt Groening is sitting on 600 million.

Simpsons is going 31 years. If you (roughly) break it down that's 200 million every ten years or 20 million a year. Roughly.

So why should he end it. He's putting his great great great grandkids through college :pac:

El_Duderino 09 · 27-05-2020 12:11pm

Boliviaperu wrote: »

Relevant is is subject and absolutely unnecessary for a show to be entertaining. You are projecting your personal preferences into everyone else.

Is classic Simpsons any less entertaining because they didn't have smartphones then? No absolutely not, it makes no difference, what you view as relevant is superficial, the value of classic simpsons is timeless.

Here's another example of you trying to link relevance and entertainment. They're separate things. The simpsons lack of relevance to today seems to have really bothered you to the point of changing what relevance means so the simpsons can be relevant again.

You'd have to admit, that's interesting to see someone do that.

Woke Hogan · 27-05-2020 12:12pm

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Not that anyone truly knows but the man himself, his wife and or his bank manager :pac: but it's believed that Matt Groening is sitting on 600 million.

Simpsons is going 31 years. If you (roughly) break it down that's 200 million every ten years or 20 million a year. Roughly.

So why should he end it. He's putting his great great great grandkids through college :pac:

I heard an interview with Sam Simon years ago where he said he had made an absolute fortune off the programme every year for decades after he was no longer involved with it. Literally tens of millions of euros annually. It’s an obscene money spinner.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-05-2020 12:17pm

Boliviaperu wrote: »

I didn't make a contradiction. Timeless quality trumps what you think is cool.

Classic simpsons is brilliant to this day, it stands the test of time. If you show kids today current simpsons and classic Simpsons they will almost always prefer classic Simpsons.

Yes you did make a contradiction. I pointed it out to you. And no, relevance doesn't mean cool or entertaining or anything else you've pretended it means. It has it's own distinct understood meaning. Just the normal meaning that we all use in normal life when we use the term "relevant". Just look back at the times you've tried to change the meaning of the term, and all because it doesn't really apply to the Simpsons. That's an over reaction.

Oh yes, older Simpsons were better. Especially when viewed back in the day when they were both a novel storytelling device and relevant to the setting and when you were the target market.

Woke Hogan · 27-05-2020 12:23pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes you did make a contradiction. I pointed it out to you. And no, relevance doesn't mean cool or entertaining or anything else you've pretended it means. It has it's own distinct understood meaning. Just the normal meaning that we all use in normal life when we use the term "relevant". Just look back at the times you've tried to change the meaning of the term, and all because it doesn't really apply to the Simpsons. That's an over reaction.

Oh yes, older Simpsons were better. Especially when viewed back in the day when they were both a novel storytelling device and relevant to the setting and when you were the target market.

You’re coming across as a bit of a pseudo intellectual, pal, with all of this “relevant” “novel story telling device” stuff.

Whichever Community College you did your media analysis PLC in should probably offer you a refund.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-05-2020 12:25pm

Boliviaperu wrote: »

What's your true motive, I sense there is a point you want to make that is personal to you? Just say it, stop beating around the Bush.

Whether the simpsons is "relevant" today is irrelevant to me. I don't care.

The point I'm making is classic simpsons is just as good as it ever was as the humour and quality of writing was timeless. Do you have a problem with that?

The current Simpsons is garbage, do you have a problem with that?

Ok. I've made the point and it's a simple point. You've taken it to mean something more than it is and it's made you cross. Maybe you've taken it personally but your reaction to this topic isn't rational. Best to leave it there.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-05-2020 12:35pm

Woke Hogan wrote: »

You’re coming across as a bit of a pseudo intellectual, pal, with all of this “relevant” “novel story telling device” stuff.

Whichever Community College you did your media analysis PLC in should probably offer you a refund.

Ah here. No need to get cross about it. I don't think it's too intellectual to recognise that the Simpsons had a novel method of storytelling. Is it too intellectual to say if a show was entertaining too? lol

El_Duderino 09 · 27-05-2020 12:36pm

Boliviaperu wrote: »

I think it was around 1998 I first noticed the quality dropping, it should have been cancelled by 2000 at the latest. There is a very good article written about the demise of the Simpsons in 2001.

Carful. With all that in-depth analysis and article read'n, Woke Hogan will call you a pseudo intellectual. lol

Woke Hogan · 27-05-2020 12:38pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah here. No need to get cross about it. I don't think it's too intellectual to recognise that the Simpsons had a novel method of storytelling. Is it too intellectual to say if a show was entertaining too? lol

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

El_Duderino 09 · 27-05-2020 12:40pm

Boliviaperu wrote: »

Classic Simpsons is brilliant watched today, the brilliance has nothing to do with it being a novel story telling device, the quality of the writing is what makes it brilliant.

Why do kids today watching classic Simpsons prefer it to current Simpsons?

Because the new ones are terrible. I though we all agree on that.

Part of the show's appeal back in the day was the novelty of the story telling device. It had more going for it than that. For instance it was edgy back then and isn't now, it was relevant to the time in which it was written which it isn't now. Some episodes are relevant like the one I mentioned earlier about labour disputes and automation. Generally, it was just a show that used to be more funny than it is now.

stevek93 · 27-05-2020 12:42pm

I always hear after Season 8 it went downhill but I think it is still good a few seasons have been poor and they pick back up again and a few episodes you think what was all that about it was like they had to make it and couldn't been ars*d at the time, especially the latest one it was Christmas themed

but if you look back closely at the older episodes some stuff you couldn't put on TV now with all this PC nonsense.

Was The Simpsons always horrendous?

Comments