Shows that went on too long.

[Quom]

People actually laugh regularly at The Simpson's? I mean that genuinely, I get that it's amusing but never realised it was trying to make me laugh.

[Emperor Fuckshit]

I'm all for Simpsons bashing, but calling Itchy, Scratchy and Poochie the nadir is missing the mark by a LOT. A twenty minute tirade against the show's fans? Wasn't it at least as much a commentary on the mindset that long-running shows need new characters to stay fresh? Plus, it had a reasonably well-constructed story and didn't end with a series of increasingly stupid non sequiturs. Plus it has at least a few lines that are pretty good.

I don't think it's missing the mark at all. That episode is the first which suggests a self-righteous desire to insulate the show's writers from criticism, and is an episode which just generally espouses a right-wing, sneery and ultimately deleterious attitude towards the "industry" of artistic production. To me, the episode is suggestive of an underlying noxious attitude amongst the writing team. That's far more serious than -- and perhaps also facilitates -- individual dumb jokes, inconsistent characterisations and poor narratives.

The episode is obnoxious, misguided and scarily authoritarian. To me, it having "a few nice lines" and a "reasonably well-constructed storyline" (the latter of which I'd dispute to some degree anyway) are vastly less important considerations.

If you're interested, I wrote a long-ish piece on the episode here.

e: As for the idea that the show was "at least as much about" the issue of long-running shows attempting to stay fresh by adding new characters -- there are several scenes which wouldn't be necessary if that were the case. The Q&A session with the I&S fans and the Bart-Comic Book Guy "argument" are the two most obvious. The show ends on a Lisa speech which basically serves to elucidate the writers' views regarding the fanbase-creators relationship. The show was widely interpreted at the time as a commentary upon postings at "The Simpsons" newsgroup pages. I think the intentions are pretty obvious. And, in any case, the content relating to the fan-creator relationship and the politics of artistic production are much more interesting than the (in any case slighter) stuff about long-lived TV shows attempting to stay fresh.

ee: Just to further flesh-out my last point -- "Vanity Fair" described the episode as "a meta-celebration, a tongue-in-cheek rebuttal to everyone who claimed that the quality of The Simpsons had declined over the years." The "Planet Simpson" web-site saw it as "the most contentious and direct counterattack The Simpsons ever unleashed on its fans." Quotations from snpp.org contributors as reproduced in the article I linked to show that they knew what the score was. The episode had a clear intent.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[MalaCloudy Black]

neeeeeerds

(Though thanks for providing me with something to read.)

[Emperor Fuckshit]

neeeeeerds

(Though thanks for providing me with something to read.)

Those nerds! They like the treks through a stars!

(Also: yr most welcome, Cloudy. That's a couple of years old and some of the haughtier bits make me cringe. But I think it's still basically "correct.")

Edited July 8, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[the machine]

I looked up nadir to make sure it meant what I thought it meant. Even if I believe everything you wrote, here and on your blog, it's not the nadir of the show. In addition to not being the lowest point, the fact that at this point the show was still capable of satirizing anything tells me it was still pretty far from the bottom, even if it's actual message can be interpreted by some as insulting to fans. Maybe it was a turning point, but I maintain the real problem didn't even happen until a year or so later.

The episode is obnoxious, misguided and scarily authoritarian. To me, it having "a few nice lines" and a "reasonably well-constructed storyline" (the latter of which I'd dispute to some degree anyway) are vastly less important considerations.

As I said, if you compare it to what was coming out during the worst period of the simpsons, it comes out looking great. Homer ends up exactly where we started and we all learn a trite lesson that gets subverted at the end.

If you're interested, I wrote a long-ish piece on the episode here.

e: As for the idea that the show was "at least as much about" the issue of long-running shows attempting to stay fresh by adding new characters -- there are several scenes which wouldn't be necessary if that were the case. The Q&A session with the I&S fans and the Bart-Comic Book Guy "argument" are the two most obvious. The show ends on a Lisa speech which basically serves to elucidate the writers' views regarding the fanbase-creators relationship. The show was widely interpreted at the time as a commentary upon postings at "The Simpsons" newsgroup pages. I think the intentions are pretty obvious. And, in any case, the content relating to the fan-creator relationship and the politics of artistic production are much more interesting than the (in any case slighter) stuff about long-lived TV shows attempting to stay fresh.

I didn't say you were wrong: I do think there are some pot-shots taken at the very extreme edges of the "fan-dom." But in the same way, what purpose does the character of Roy serve if the episode's sole purpose was to bash fans?

It really just seems like in your article you're just trying to work yourself into a frenzy over details while missing part of the picture. You focus in on Lisa's line about "quality after all these years," ignoring the fact that the episode ends with the television being turned off and Bart saying "what else is on?"

You focus in on the super-nerds that don't present a realistic depiction of simpsons fans (probably because they're ciphers for the images of star trek fans at the time), but look at the writers. From Cohen's "we were eating fried chicken" to the mumbled assent of the writers to the name "Poochie" being good, the writers look like idiots across the board. Maybe not as bad as my personal favorite where Roger Meyers throws a mug at a writer singing "fair Harvard," but singling out the fans treatment as dimwitted losers misses the point that the writers are depicted just as poorly. And the lack of originality is re-enforced by Roy's sudden appearance on the show.

And Roy and Poochie, with their sunglasses, hats, baggy clothes, surfboard, and "funky" attitude are just a series of paradigms (a word dumb people use to sound important) without any real referents: Poochie is cool just because he's linked up to a bunch of stuff people are supposed to find "cool," not because he's actually cool. It's the sort of character that could only be created by somebody in marketing. Speaking of which, this is Lindsey Naegle's first appearance, although her name doesn't come until later. The synergy-encouraging corporate character is pretty much just there to satirize corporate culture.

What you see as an authoritarian attempt to eliminate criticism could just as easily be viewed as a recognition of its fanbase. Back when the Simpsons would actually target an issue (before South Park gained the exclusive rights for that sort of thing), it meant something to be worth being a target. Saying that the characters don't address the real issues and are just vapid nerds ignores one of the central aspects of the show: that nearly everyone in Springfield is a moron. It's worth noting that the writers took existing characters like Homer's college buddies and Comic Book Guy to be the stand-ins for the Itchy and Scratchy fans: they could have launched a mean-spirited straight out attack on new and unknown characters, but connected the story to minor characters the fans would recognize.

I really think the fact that the episode could still be called a "satire" and not just a "cartoon" means that even if there are some warning bells, we're a long way from the bottom of the well.

[Emperor Fuckshit]

I looked up nadir to make sure it meant what I thought it meant. Even if I believe everything you wrote, here and on your blog, it's not the nadir of the show. In addition to not being the lowest point, the fact that at this point the show was still capable of satirizing anything tells me it was still pretty far from the bottom, even if it's actual message can be interpreted by some as insulting to fans. Maybe it was a turning point, but I maintain the real problem didn't even happen until a year or so later.

Nadir = "the lowest point." I believe that episode to have been the worst episode of the show ever broadcast. That doesn't necessarily mean that every episode afterwards was as bad. I'm not even labelling the show a "turning point" -- I don't think that the show's transformation from efficacy to uselessness necessarily needs to be seen as a linear narrative.

In re: the bolded part. I'd much rather see the show become entirely a-political than witness it take on undeserving "targets" in a sneery, inept, and obnoxious fashion.

As I said, if you compare it to what was coming out during the worst period of the simpsons, it comes out looking great. Homer ends up exactly where we started and we all learn a trite lesson that gets subverted at the end.

I don't believe this to be true. I don't think that any other episode of the show is anywhere close to being as reprehensible in terms of the ideas about culture that it presents. For me, that's far more important than any narrative or joke-based concerns.

What "trite lesson" are you talking about, and in what way is this "subverted at the end"?

I didn't say you were wrong: I do think there are some pot-shots taken at the very extreme edges of the "fan-dom." But in the same way, what purpose does the character of Roy serve if the episode's sole purpose was to bash fans?

I offered some commentary on my blog post regarding the way in which the Roy character could be seen as a "troll" directed towards sections of the fanbase. A popular criticism of the show at the time was that it lacked sensible narrative and/or consistent characterisation. Introducing a character without a back-story (or present-story, I suppose) would obviously serve as a tongue-in-cheek "baiting" of that criticism.

I'm not denying that the episode is to some extent concerned with the capacity of shows to survive over the long-term via the insertion of new characters, etc.. I just feel that those elements are vastly subordinated to attacks on the fan-base and are, in any case, far less interesting than the political expressions contained within the episode.

Also, you mention the "pot-shots taken at the very extreme edges of the "fan-dom"". But don't you think that by addressing these "extreme edges" in such a lengthy and public fashion, the writers are suggesting that such fans are a serious "problem"/issue? They're essentially conflating (at least) two elements of the fan-base together, and knocking down the arguments of the "extremists" whilst simultaneously making attacks at the wider fan-based ("what do they owe you?"; "we should be grateful"; "on the internet registering my disgust"; etc.).

If you yourself acknowledge that the behaviour of the fans represented in the episode reflect at most the fanciful obsessionalism of a few at the "extremes", then don't you think that the episode is disingenuous, defensive and panicky, or at least incredibly smug?

It really just seems like in your article you're just trying to work yourself into a frenzy over details

Like those NERDS at the Q&A session!!!!!! I AM the Comic Book Guy!!!!! Which "details" would these be?

.. ignoring the fact that the episode ends with the television being turned off and Bart saying "what else is on?"

[...]

From Cohen's "we were eating fried chicken" to the mumbled assent of the writers to the name "Poochie" being good, the writers look like idiots across the board. Maybe not as bad as my personal favorite where Roger Meyers throws a mug at a writer singing "fair Harvard," but singling out the fans treatment as dimwitted losers misses the point that the writers are depicted just as poorly.

I interpreted the former as just a cutesy attempt on the part of the writers to display some self-awareness as regards the show's ultimately ephemeral nature.

As for the latter, "The Simpsons" writers are happy enough to take lukewarm shots at themselves, sure. But if they were really a self-effacing bunch without major egos or a belief in their own abilities, then how do you explain the whole of the rest of the episode? Why would they be so willing to publicly and sneerily attack those who criticise the show? Why would they (by proxy, of course) insist that "if anything, [the fans] owe [us]?" and to baldly state, through Lisa's mouth at the close, that the show is still in rude health?

A couple of winking gags that -- ho, ho -- us writers enjoy junk food and come homogeneously from privileged backgrounds hardly makes up for the content of the rest of the episode, does it?

And the lack of originality is re-enforced by Roy's sudden appearance on the show.

As I've said above, I don't think that this is the intent of this element of the show. Or, at best, it's another example of that which I've talked about immediately above -- an attempt to basically brush-off criticism with a "hey ho, I suppose we've made some mistakes but, hey, it's a tough job and we're still the best around so fucking shut it, fatty" attitude.

What you see as an authoritarian attempt to eliminate criticism could just as easily be viewed as a recognition of its fanbase. Back when the Simpsons would actually target an issue (before South Park gained the exclusive rights for that sort of thing), it meant something to be worth being a target.

Why would they choose to "acknowledge" that portion of the fanbase by attacking, misrepresenting and trying to silence it? The show has been viewed as an attack by pretty much all observers from both sides of the fence. There really are no shades of grey. At some point, doesn't this become a purely semantic differentiation without material significance? The episode "acknowledges" the show's internet fanbase in the same way that "The Day Today" "acknowledges" broadcast news. Surely the content of the presentation matters more than the way it's arbitrarily termed.

Saying that the characters don't address the real issues and are just vapid nerds ignores one of the central aspects of the show: that nearly everyone in Springfield is a moron. It's worth noting that the writers took existing characters like Homer's college buddies and Comic Book Guy to be the stand-ins for the Itchy and Scratchy fans: they could have launched a mean-spirited straight out attack on new and unknown characters, but connected the story to minor characters the fans would recognize.

And yet it's clear whose side the show's one "intelligent" character is on. And even Bart gets some relatively eloquent, forceful and straight lines in defense of the company line. There is never anything so much as a semi-intelligent equivalent expression of "the other" argument.

I really think the fact that the episode could still be called a "satire" and not just a "cartoon" means that even if there are some warning bells, we're a long way from the bottom of the well.

I'd take non-satirical stuff over bad satire any day. This is why I'm not rubbing my hands with glee at the prospect of that Zucker brothers film about how Michael Moore is a big fat liberal dummy.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[I Don't Mind]

Genius at Work: "In episode 2F09 when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe? That this is some sort of a [scoffs, laughs] magic xylophone or something? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that one."

-- 'The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show'.

Emperor Fuckshit = Genius at Work nerd.

[million$$man]

The Simpsons: Anything after season 10 was really unwatchable for me.

ER: Should've ended three years before it did

CSI: With Grissom, Sidle, and Warrick being gone, it has really sucked.

[the machine]

I don't believe this to be true. I don't think that any other episode of the show is anywhere close to being as reprehensible in terms of the ideas about culture that it presents. For me, that's far more important than any narrative or joke-based concerns.

I'd have to think more about the cultural messages in the simpsons trip to Florida because I'm pretty sure there's no way it could have possibly been better than Poochie.

What "trite lesson" are you talking about, and in what way is this "subverted at the end"?

I thought I covered this? You talk about Lisa's speech about giving thanks for consistent quality, subverted by Bart's "what else is on." It's a good ending, especially compared to Homer shooting Marge with a blowgun or various other "screw the audience" jokes that Al Jean seems to enjoy.

I offered some commentary on my blog post regarding the way in which the Roy character could be seen as a "troll" directed towards sections of the fanbase. A popular criticism of the show at the time was that it lacked sensible narrative and/or consistent characterisation. Introducing a character without a back-story (or present-story, I suppose) would obviously serve as a tongue-in-cheek "baiting" of that criticism.

I really don't think that holds water because the commentary was so obvious fans wouldn't be offended. The Armin Tanzarian reveal in season 9 is the sort of thing that offends fans, which according to the commentary is intended (though I doubt that).

If you yourself acknowledge that the behaviour of the fans represented in the episode reflect at most the fanciful obsessionalism of a few at the "extremes", then don't you think that the episode is disingenuous, defensive and panicky, or at least incredibly smug?

No. It's a satire. A composition in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn. I don't want a "respectful" and "evenhanded" debate, because that isn't funny. In this case the vice appears to be obsessive fans.

Like those NERDS at the Q&A session!!!!!! I AM the Comic Book Guy!!!!! Which "details" would these be?

Did you read through what I wrote first or did you divide this up into paragraph chunks for ease of reading? Everything after this paragraph was about how you either ignored or downplayed everything else so you could be SO MAD about what the episode was about (after you removed all the other stuff it was about).

As for the latter, "The Simpsons" writers are happy enough to take lukewarm shots at themselves, sure. But if they were really a self-effacing bunch without major egos or a belief in their own abilities, then how do you explain the whole of the rest of the episode? Why would they be so willing to publicly and sneerily attack those who criticise the show? Why would they (by proxy, of course) insist that "if anything, [the fans] owe [us]?" and to baldly state, through Lisa's mouth at the close, that the show is still in rude health?

Because they sneerily attack the group that even the show's fans hate. Almost everyone on SNPP thought the comments weren't aimed at them, and were glad to see "worst episode ever" fans taken down a peg. Seriously, this episode gave us that catch phrase. I really don't see how you can think this is the bottom of the series beyond your concerns over the message.

A couple of winking gags that -- ho, ho -- us writers enjoy junk food and come homogeneously from privileged backgrounds hardly makes up for the content of the rest of the episode, does it?

Those lousy writers make me madder than a... yak in heat!

As I've said above, I don't think that this is the intent of this element of the show. Or, at best, it's another example of that which I've talked about immediately above -- an attempt to basically brush-off criticism with a "hey ho, I suppose we've made some mistakes but, hey, it's a tough job and we're still the best around so fucking shut it, fatty" attitude.

I just don't get how you see this as a slap at the fans and not a criticism of corporate culture. To me that's just more evidence of finding stuff to be mad at when you've exhausted the stuff you're really mad at.

Also keep in mind this is one of the first and most obvious acknowledgments that the writers were familiar with the fans. Even if there's a few cheap shots, I see this more as a recognition of the fan's importance more than an appeal for the fans to shut up. Again, satire.

I'm tired of this conversation! Let's talk about something else! I'm going home!

Edited July 8, 2009 by the machine

[AnnIQ Edison]

To break away from The Simpsons debate, 8 Rules About Dating My Teenage Daughter should have ended after the dad died in real life. I could understand ending the season but to continue on after was just bad.

[Evil Chase K]

I actually think part of the reason the new Simpsons episodes aren't as good is because they continue to lose time to commercials per Fox's orders.

[GhostMachine]

For those who don't know, the term "Jumping the shark" comes from an episode of Happy Days where Fonzie did a water ski jump over a shark, and people mark that as where the show started going downhill. I don't agree, but the show definitely went on about 2 or 3 seasons longer than it should have.

Married With Children, Friends, Roseanne and ER all lasted a season longer than they probably should have - possibly even two seasons too long in ER's case. Roseanne's last season was pretty much shit, and has what I regard as the worst possible series finale I've ever seen. (Though the finale of the American version of Life On Mars is right up there)

CSI needs to end once Marg Helgenberger decides to leave, and NCIS needs to end if Mark Harmon or Michael Weatherly decide to leave (though it would be pretty painful to watch NCIS without David McCallum or Pauley Perrette).

[TheSqauredCircleMessiah]

Any sitcom that goes beyond the 5-7 year mark is on too long, depending on the quality of the writers. Friends, Seinfeld, Frasier, Married...with Children, Everybody Loves Raymond, Scrubs, M*A*S*H immediately spring to mind. I really can't think of a single sitcom that I would watching year 9 and think, "Wow, this show is better than ever." I think The Office is rapidly approaching that point. Same with How I Met Your Mother, the only show other than LOST on television that needs a definite end date. As far as the Simpsons debate, that show started to go down the shitter once Bill Oakley & Josh Weinstein took over as show runners, with the last truly great season IMO being season 7. Honestly, anything after season 10 is crap. I have no clue why, but I hold so much resentment towards that Lisa Kudrow episode.

As far as dramas go...The X-Files should've ended when David Duchovny wanted to quit. ER should've stopped after season 10, but weirdly, I think the last 3 years were pretty good. I cannot phathom why anything relating to Law & Order is still on the air.

[Powerhart]

For me it's That 70's Show. There were some great laughs and moments in the last few seasons, but it wasn't as great as the first 4 or 5. Really sucked when Topher left.

I completely agree with you bro, and as you can see I'm a That '70s Show fan, the show did went downhill when the whole Eric/Donna/Marriage saga, around the end of Season 5 (if I'm not mistaken) and Fez looking so normal after Season 5 wasn't funny anymore he wasn't the same foreign-funny-weird guy that he had been, Season 6 was ok but Season 7 and specially Season 8 lacked the x-factor that had made That 70s Show a great sitcom, but the final Episode made it up for me. And Randy joining totally fucked up the whole Season 8, god he sucked.

Also, Scrubs should not continue, the final episode was perfect and it didn't gave away anything, it was just J.D. imagining his future, so you don't know if it indeed happend or what, but you got the feeling that it did. The finale was greatly written and it should stay like that.

[Emperor Fuckshit]

I thought I covered this? You talk about Lisa's speech about giving thanks for consistent quality, subverted by Bart's "what else is on." It's a good ending, especially compared to Homer shooting Marge with a blowgun or various other "screw the audience" jokes that Al Jean seems to enjoy.

Oh, right. As I worked further down your post, I realised that this was probably what you meant.

Anyway, here's an alternative reading of Bart's line at the end: the line isn't an "aw shucks" admission of ephemerality by the writers; but is rather a prescription of correct viewing practice. All through the episode, the "tension" is provided by critical viewership of "Itchy and Scratchy." It's made quite clear during the Q&A session that one of the main "problems" with the "nerdy" fans is that they watch too carefully (Homer: "Why would a man whose shirt says 'genius at work' spend all of his time watching a children's cartoon show"). The audience's critical mindset is not only problematic, it's unwarranted since T.V. is "supposed" to be a medium enjoyed casually without being chewed over. At the end of the show, the tension is resolved as the writers' view of how television should be consumed is returned to hegemony. Bart's reaction to the I&S show (combined with Lisa's) is a blueprint for how the writers would want fans to react to "The Simpsons" -- "be positive if you can, be negative if you must but -- please, God -- don't think too much." "Over"-analyzing the show can lead to critique that is eloquent and well-substantiated. During the course of the episode, the writers have proved themselves unwilling to/incapable of addressing such criticism -- hence the conflations, lazy straw-men and personal attacks.

I really don't think that holds water because the commentary was so obvious fans wouldn't be offended.

Well, that's how a number of snpp.org editors read the character. And I think that the point would be for it to be "obvious." It's a cartoonish reduction of a practice often performed un-cartoonishly. It's a giggling reminder that "hee hee... we can and will do this if we want." Maybe it'll be done self-consciously at first but, later, who knows...

I agree that Roy also serves the purpose of a parallel with Poochie in order to extend the allegory. But I don't think it's too fanciful to suggest the above dual purpose.

No. It's a satire. A composition in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn. I don't want a "respectful" and "evenhanded" debate, because that isn't funny. In this case the vice appears to be obsessive fans.

But by this formulation then any satire -- no matter how unconvincing the arguments put forward or how undeserving the "target" -- is positive. The whole problem with the episode is that it attacks a tiny minority of (powerless, harmless) people; does so in a way that conflates those people with others who don't share the traits being ineptly "attacked"; and does so in a way that is obnoxious, panicky, defensive, sneery, etc..

For me, good satire doesn't necessarily need to be "balanced." "The Day Today" never ran a sketch which revealed that, actually, news broadcasters work as hard as they can and deserve credit for doing a tough job under a great pressure, etc.. But TDT did at least present its "side of the case" accurately. It took the piss out of things which were actual practices of the majority of news broadcasts. It aimed itself at a deserving (powerful; malevolent; large-scale) target. And, notably, the TDT crew were not one of the "sides" of the debate (apart from insofar as the contributors were all consumers of news programming). The "Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show" episode is an exercise in self-defense rather than disinterested bludgeoning -- that's probably the root of its satirical problems. Good satire doesn't have to and shouldn't have to abandon any hope of portraying its targets accurately whilst extracting "lulz."

Because they sneerily attack the group that even the show's fans hate.

Whilst conflating that group with the entirety of the internet fanbase. ("Registering my disgust throughout the world"; the early test-screening scene). And the group of "hardcore fans" (as represented in the Q&A session scene) is basically an irrelevant group that -- as you say -- isn't even taken seriously by the rest of the internet fans.

Almost everyone on SNPP thought the comments weren't aimed at them, and were glad to see "worst episode ever" fans taken down a peg.

The fans on SNPP were "glad to see" a tiny and irrelevant minority of the fanbase attacked, because the fans on SNPP (or the editors at least) were thrilled to play some tiny part in an episode and were aware that, if they criticised the show, they'd be laughed at and identified with the CBG. In fact, some SNPP editors actually expressed their "appreciation" for the 'sode by noting that it "hit a little too close to home!!!!!!" or that "you sure got us good!!!!!!" or whatever. Ultimately, I think the majority of SNPP editors are maybe not too bright.

I just don't get how you see this as a slap at the fans and not a criticism of corporate culture.

Probably all the attacks aimed at the fans. Yes, there are attacks directed at "the network." But... so what? How does that diminish all of the energy expended in shouting down the fanbase? Why are you presenting this as an "either/or" dynamic? The elements of the episode which are critical of the network feed into the expression of self-defense by way of a "hey, don't look at us"-type argument.

Even if there's a few cheap shots, I see this more as a recognition of the fan's importance more than an appeal for the fans to shut up. Again, satire.

CAMDEN-NOODLERS

(n.) 1. People who visit Camden Market and, upon being spoilt for choice by a huge variety of cuisine from all over the world, start joylessly shovelling noodles into their stubbly, woolly-hatted heads, barely even aware what the little foil tray in front of them actually contains. 2. Comedy fans on the internet.

To me the only way that the "acknowledgement"/"attack" distinction would work would be if the episode shyed away from making didactic conclusions. It doesn't. Between the assertions that "we don't owe you anything; if anything you owe us" and "we're still providing you with quality entertainment after all these years" and the pompous rhetorical questions as to "what right do you have to critcise the show?" we're left with no uncertainty as to where the writers' sympathies lie. Now, you could argue that these are intentional caricatures. But, in order to be caricatures, they must at least have a solid basis in the writers' genuine opinions. Consider the way that the two sides of the argument are stacked up: in the "supportive/passive" corner we have all of the members of OFF (the show's "sympathetic" characters) and a relatively eloquent expression (Lisa's closing speech). Bart is even taken out of the character to defend this line of argument, making straight-faced, somewhat sophisticated, pro-authority comments. Now look at the "criticial" side of the debate: fat, ugly nerds with stupid voices who have no lives!!!! And no articulate expression -- in fact, an expression so inarticulate that it became a catch-phrase for that very reason.

The show makes conclusive comments; it has an agenda. It's not speculative. I don't see how regarding the show as a mere "acknowledgement" can be anything other than a purely semantic differentiation.

I'm tired of this conversation! Let's talk about something else! I'm going home!

That's unfortunate. Now I won't have any more opportunities to insincerely whip myself up into an unwarranted frenzy like my idol the Comic Book Guy. Since that, as you've so trenchantly observed, is my real motivation.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[thatblindgeye]

For those who don't know, the term "Jumping the shark" comes from an episode of Happy Days where Fonzie did a water ski jump over a shark, and people mark that as where the show started going downhill. I don't agree, but the show definitely went on about 2 or 3 seasons longer than it should have.

Married With Children, Friends, Roseanne and ER all lasted a season longer than they probably should have - possibly even two seasons too long in ER's case. Roseanne's last season was pretty much shit, and has what I regard as the worst possible series finale I've ever seen. (Though the finale of the American version of Life On Mars is right up there)

CSI needs to end once Marg Helgenberger decides to leave, and NCIS needs to end if Mark Harmon or Michael Weatherly decide to leave (though it would be pretty painful to watch NCIS without David McCallum or Pauley Perrette).

Really? I rather enjoyed the final season. I mean, the whole "Jackie and her Prince" thing and the stupid guest stars I didnt like, but I thought it was a nice change from the rest of the seasons where they were barely making it to winning a lottery (something every family in their situation would love to happen). I thought the series finale was good as well. It wasnt unexpected and actually made sense. Having everything pretty much just be a book that she was writing and her changing things and the truth being revealed at the end of the episode was very good, then seeing the house transformed back to how it was originally. Guess its just another one of those thnigs that you either liked/could put up with or something you didnt like at all, though.

[Emperor Fuckshit]

Any sitcom that goes beyond the 5-7 year mark is on too long, depending on the quality of the writers. Friends, Seinfeld, Frasier, Married...with Children, Everybody Loves Raymond, Scrubs, M*A*S*H immediately spring to mind. I really can't think of a single sitcom that I would watching year 9 and think, "Wow, this show is better than ever."

"Seinfeld" probably wasn't at its peak by the final season, and the last ever episode struck me as a huge anti-climax and disappointment. But I think it was still basically a "good show" at its termination -- i.e., it deserved a '1' on my patented 0-1 rating scale. "The Puerto Rican Day" is an excellent episode from very late in the final run, for example, and whilst obviously on the tail-end of the basic bell curve, the final series is very good TV comedy.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[EddieRuckus]

I'd have to agree about The Office, it's very much so approaching that point where it's going to feel like it's going on too long. Granted there was some brilliant points in Season 5, but for the most part a lot of the episodes had that feel of dragging on. As for How I Met Your Mother, it's still got some juice left, but if they try to make it last longer than 6 or 7 seasons then it possibly might have that feeling of going on too long. As long as the writing is good and fresh though, I want it to last as long as it can without getting to the point where it should be put down.

[MyKILLv2.0]

I echo the statement made earlier about just about any sitcom lasting more then 5-7 years. Two that come to mind for me are Spin City & 8 Simple Rules. Michael J. Fox was awesome in Spin City, yet you couldn't have a more polar opposite replacement then Charlie Sheen....whom I like, especially on Two and Half Men. The show should have ended when Fox had to leave. Also, 8 Simple Rules should have ended after the show when Ritter died. The show was centralized around him. It wasn't/didn't work without him.

[MalaCloudy Black]

I thought 8 Simple Rules actually wasn't that bad after John Ritter's passing. It got a little tedious in its last season or two, but I liked the inclusion of David Spade's character and how John Ritter's passing was included in the show. I prefer John Ritter episodes to David Spade episodes, but I didn't think it was bad with David Spade at all.