Was The Simpsons always horrendous?

CoBo55 · 26-05-2020 6:36pm

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Ha ha...

Woke Hogan · 26-05-2020 6:53pm

I was already an adult watching The Simpsons in the 90s and the episodes from that time are as good now as they were then. All of these “nostalgia,” “they wouldn’t be as fresh now” or “it’s not relevant now” (whatever that means) stuff belies the fact that a truly good piece of work can withstand the test of time.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 26-05-2020 6:54pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And it seems you've taken no account of nostalgia.

The classic so.paons were relevant back in the day. They're not relevant now. That's one of the reasons that new peopep don't "discover" the Simpsons, even the classic ones.

It was good back then when I was the target audience and the quality probably dropped off. It's the relevance that completely dried up and that's why I don't bother with it. I'll watch a few minutes of one for old times sake but as soon s the ads come I'll change channel. It's not worth waiting for and each story is completely irrelevant. It's just a kinda-funny show now but it wouldn't be worth making in 2020.

This is all very odd. I’m nostalgic for a lot of shows. But I think some stand up better than others. Some don’t stand up at all, some are as great as they ever were. But I have nostalgia for all the shows I used to watch. The target audience was pretty much everybody because the best shows aren’t constrained by trying to capture a narrow demographic.

BailMeOut · 26-05-2020 7:31pm

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

El_Duderino 09 · 26-05-2020 11:29pm

Homelander wrote: »

That's a weird argument.

It's like trying to argue that nostalgia is a major reason most people consider the original Star Wars trilogy better than the prequel trilogy, rather than the widely acknowledged inferior quality of the latter.

I mean, it also completely ignores the downward trend of both critical reception and audience scores to The Simpsons.

Could it have anything at all to do with the insanely high quality of the first 10 odd seasons, with it's excellent writing, characters and plot lines that have stood the test of time remarkably well?

No.....it's nostalgia.

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.

Woke Hogan · 26-05-2020 11:33pm

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.

Relevant to what?

El_Duderino 09 · 26-05-2020 11:39pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

This is all very odd. I’m nostalgic for a lot of shows. But I think some stand up better than others. Some don’t stand up at all, some are as great as they ever were. But I have nostalgia for all the shows I used to watch. The target audience was pretty much everybody because the best shows aren’t constrained by trying to capture a narrow demographic.

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.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-05-2020 11:43pm

Woke Hogan wrote: »

Relevant to what?

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.

riffmongous · 26-05-2020 11:54pm

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.

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

Homelander · 27-05-2020 12:35am

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

And 90% of the meme material is from the first ten seasons.

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.

Was The Simpsons always horrendous?

Comments