The Simpsons

[New Damage]

For me, the earlier mid-seasons before about 2000 were better just because they had lots of stupid, pointless jokes that were easy to understand and often miss able on first watch. The main example of this is from the episode where they film Radioactive Man in Springfield. The film execs are flipping through the book and see these huge, full page ads for New York, Utah etc., until they come across the tiny one for "Flim" Springfield. I mean I've seen the episode many times over the years but only noticed the spelling error the other day.

"Wow, look at that ad! They don't need a fancy advert or even correct spelling! Let's go there!"

"I can agree with that logic."

"Get me two tickets to the state that Springfield is in!"

Actually, that episode is full of small jokes in of itself that you don't really need to follow the story with to get. (Nelson yelling at Skinner through the intercom and Skinner commenting that he shouldn't have been able to hear it, the camp satire of the 1960's Batman films, Krusty wanting to talk about the coffee to the producer despite the building getting destroyed by acid etc.) [/gushing]

Edited August 20, 2009 by TheModernWay

[Emperor Fuckshit]

(Nelson yelling at Skinner through the intercom and Skinner commenting that he shouldn't have been able to hear it...

This almost falls into the category that Weinman was talking about, though, doesn't it? It sort of seems like parody -- but what of? It could alternatively be seen as self-deprecation on the part of the writers -- admitting that they often need logical inconsistencies to further plots -- but couldn't that result in the line just seeming smugly self-referential and therefore annoying? For me, it's one of those things that I have to parse the intention of for so long that the moment passes in terms of mining any actual humour.

[GA!]

Very good article, I though. Locating one of the major problems with the writing of "The Simpsons" in later series as its love for "intentionally" bad lines is spot on, I think. I'd never thought of that style as an exercise in self-referentiality before, but that angle makes a lot of sense. Self-absorption in a general sense was a big problem for the show in its later years, with its constant love of back-referencing and sly nods to the viewer -- writing that rests, almost literally, on past glories.

I think from the point-of-view where individual lines aren't dissected, The Simpsons downfall was from "intentionally" bad episodes. 'Itchy, Scratchy and Poochie' and 'The Simpsons Spin-Off Showcase' miraculously work as concepts and occasionally appear in best-of lists. I believe as a consequence of those two episodes, the self-referential comedy really kicked in. It resulted in absolute dirge like the episode with Duncan the Diving Horse where the episode is actually about the writers' repeating a plot while saying how silly their cartoon is now, and 'The Principal and the Pauper' where the writers' are incapable of digging themselves out of a hole, which explains the abrupt ending and blatant use of the proverbial reset button.

[Hutch2004]

So the Simpsons is bad because the show has jokes that appeal to the writers? Jesus Christ, show me one show in the history of television that doesn't! The Simpsons is often cited as an example of brilliantly grafted jokes from many people, Simon Pegg, Ricky Gervais (to name two that I've read recently) all the way down to my friends and colleagues. It's a series that even at it's weaker moments showcases jokes that are brilliantly written. I doubt the writers sit around and come up with a joke, and then reject it because it wont fit the humour style of the head writer. I'm a firm believer that funny is funny, and if a show is well written it'll make you laugh.

However, I do agree that the Simpson's has become such a parody of itself that that is something that spoils it. However I don't feel that's a result of one specific writer and everyone else kissing their ass, more of a result of running for over a decade with a production cycle that runs pretty much constantly. You're bound to scrape the bottom of the barrel. We've seen a trend of focusing on the incredibly minor characters (a Christmas two parter centered around GILL for Christ's sake! I doubt anyone outside the really hardcore fans even know who he is) to the expense of the episode, or even an entire episode that was a lead up to an elaborate spoof. I suppose on that note I sound like I'm agreeing with the article, but I honestly think the blame placed on one writer is (WARNING WRESTLING COMPARISON ALERT) is like blaming the decline of WCW solely on Vince Russo's shoulders. It doesn't work like that.

[Guest Mr. Potato Head]

Not *quite* sure how this is related to the original article or NWC's reply, but it's something I thought of a while ago and felt should be mentioned here.

I've been largely not watching The Simpsons for about three years now, because I was getting tired of watching a show where I knew every line before it was said. I saw the movie, and I'll maybe flip on a rerun every few months or so when I'm bored.

The last one I saw was "Lisa the Simpson" - the episode where Lisa worries she's getting stupid on account of the Simpson gene. When I was more into the show and the online community, I remember thinking - and remember this being a common thread among others - that this was a fairly weak episode - not as bad as the then-current Season 13, but not as good as what had come just a couple of years before.

Re-watching it? It's pretty good. There's still a well-designed character arc leading through the episode (Lisa being the 'classic' version of her character, and Homer ultimately having a good heart even if his brain tries to hide it). The storyline that seemed ridiculously implausible at the time - the B-story with Frostilicus and the Kwik-E-Mart - no longer seems annoying because of its implausibility, and the 'Nude-E-Mart' scene actually got me to laugh out loud this time. The unsuccessful Simpson men were varying degrees of funny (even if the women did lead to the sort of joke Weinman's talking about, where Marge is most impressed with the least impressive of their careers). Chief Wiggum's cameo was brilliant. And so on.

Dunno what to make of this, other than that I guess it does agree with Weinman in a roundabout way - the show was at its best when there was definite characterization and you actually had reasons to like the Simpson family members. The current episodes (and even the movie) don't have that, and are instead trying to ape Family Guy's success, with poor results.

[Emperor Fuckshit]

I think from the point-of-view where individual lines aren't dissected, The Simpsons downfall was from "intentionally" bad episodes. 'Itchy, Scratchy and Poochie' and 'The Simpsons Spin-Off Showcase' miraculously work as concepts and occasionally appear in best-of lists. I believe as a consequence of those two episodes, the self-referential comedy really kicked in.

That's a good point, GA. No doubt the universal praise received by "The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show" encouraged the writers to persist with that style of comedy. In a more general way, the endless plaudits had probably convinced many of those tightly associated with the show that they could simply do no wrong. And -- as I've now described many times in various places -- that specific episode was also effective in convincing a great portion of the previously-critical fanbase to refrain from overt negativity (at least for a time).

A similar phenomenon could be described in the UK. The media jumped on "The Office" and made it into a huge critical success, to the extent that it went virtually unchallenged. Ricky Gervais responded by ramping up the self-referential aspects of his show to an even greater degree via "Extras", and a whole hoard of imitators (in a very real sense, Gervais was an imitator himself, of course) simultaneously surfed the "naturalistic" wave.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[King Ellis]

Do the kids still attribute any good in The Simpsons to Conan O'Brien?

[METALMAN]

I think another possible factor could just be that it's been going for about 20 years or so and there aren't a great deal of TV shows or indeed anything requiring creativity that is able to maintain consistency for such a long period of time. Maybe it's about time they took a few years out or just gave it up altogether and tried something new.

Bob Dylan's career is an obvious comparison. He was really strong for his first ten years or so but afterwards just got worse and worse until the 80s when he was releasing a load of rubbish. Then he took a break for five years or so and started releasing good stuff again by the late 90s.

Or maybe that was a load of rubbish. >_>

Anyway, it was a good article and I'm enjoying reading the discussion about it here.

EDIT: I myself haven't watched Simpsons for ageeeeeees except the movie. Which wasn't very good.

[New Damage]

It's more that those jokes are there and thrown in sort of randomly, don't mean anything and are forgotten quickly in context to the story. Now, I like Family Guy, but Family Guy does this in a way just to get laughs but make no sense to the story at all, and have the "lol, random" factor, prime examples being the "like the time I forgot to sit down" and chicken fight jokes. They add nothing to the storyline, and are almost sketches thrown into the storyline.

Speaking of Gervais, on Sky's website you can vote on the top 20 moments since Sky began (relating to Sky), such as Sky showing Lost, Chandler proposing to Monica on Friends, and the Simpsons episode that starred and was written by Gervais. Even as far as latter season episodes go, that was a very bad episode. I'll admit I'm not a Gervais fan, but it was still a bad episode were just nothing seemed to happen, which is a common complaint of latter episodes, nothing seems to happen. What is strange though, The Movie was in the same vein and up to par with the "good years", kinda seems like they were "saving themselves" for the Movie if you catch my drift.

[GA!]

A similar phenomenon could be described in the UK. The media jumped on "The Office" and made it into a huge critical success, to the extent that it went virtually unchallenged. Ricky Gervais responded by ramping up the self-referential aspects of his show to an even greater degree via "Extras", and a whole hoard of imitators (in a very real sense, Gervais was an imitator himself, of course) simultaneously surfed the "naturalistic" wave.

I blame The Office for the death of British AND American comedy. Before its naturalistic style, we had a very distinctive brand of sitcom, based around plot-heavy, self contained situations where the action revolved around one-liners and surrealism. When The Office became an international hit, we must have signed a treaty with America or something to create a brand of pedestrian awkward-ies where people argue instead of exchange dialogue, and character development is based on who's-fucking-who.

[Emperor Fuckshit]

Do the kids still attribute any good in The Simpsons to Conan O'Brien?

Heh, I'd hope so. He wrote "Marge vs. the Monorail", didn't he?

I think another possible factor could just be that it's been going for about 20 years or so and there aren't a great deal of TV shows or indeed anything requiring creativity that is able to maintain consistency for such a long period of time. Maybe it's about time they took a few years out or just gave it up altogether and tried something new.

I wonder how much Matt Groening cares about the artistic quality of the show so long as it's still making money and still regarded as good entertainment by the popular press and the plebier elements of the fan-base? (Or maybe he's just convinced himself that everything's fine -- or salvageable at least). The "it's just been going too long" theory seems glib; but there's an element of truth to it. The "writing staff" approach of "The Simpsons" (and most other American sitcoms) lends itself well to longevity, but not so much to consistency or to a continued and united artistic vision. The writers used by the show at this point are mostly people who weren't involved at its outset. This can easily lead to later episodes feeling like "cover versions" of predecessors, or to a process whereby the episodes just become a long ejection of undifferentiated, grey comedy slop (since there's no artistic vision uniting all of those responsible for the production of the show). Imagine if "Flying Circus" were still going now (this is more of a comparison with "Saturday Night Live" than with "The Simpsons", but the point holds). It would be a revue for people like Sean Pegg, Marcus Brigstocke, David Mitchell, Russell Howard, etc.. It would have nothing in common with the shows produced by the original five, but wouldn't be able to escape association with or expectations making reference to the Gilliam-Palin-Cleese-Jones-Idle years.

Edited August 20, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[MalaCloudy Black]

He wrote "Marge vs. the Monorail", didn't he?

Yep

[Emperor Fuckshit]

I blame The Office for the death of British AND American comedy...

Well, the relationship between Gervais and America is a bit more complex than that, in that Gervais himself was influenced heavily by "The Larry Sanders Show" and perhaps "Curb Your Enthusiasm" (the pilot of which aired in 1999, so I'm not sure if Gervais could've seen it before writing "The Office", which was aired in 2001). Elements of "Seinfeld" (the "no hugging; no learning" ethos, the cutesy conversational asides) were also heavily in the mix. Gervais was later very emphatic about his American influences, which peaked with the "...Meets" interviews with David and Shandling. (I suppose one might say further that "This is Spinal Tap" must've been a big influence on all three.)

The emphasis on American influences was probably in large part for Gervais a way of securing interest from a more lucrative market whilst also drawing attention away from the obvious debt he owed to less fashionable British shows ("The Royale Family"... shit, even stuff like "Operation Good Guys").

But, yeah, Gervais had the aggressive publicity behind him and the ability to interest a trans-atlantic audience. "Seinfeld" was never very popular when aired on BBC2; Shandling is basically an unknown; and the U.K. only "discovered" CYE after Gervais' success, for the most part.

The tide is beginning to turn a little, in a sense. "Extras" (especially series two) was received in a rather more lukewarm way by the press. Armando Ianucci's lecture series and associated "Times" columns were critical of trends inspired by "The Office", and those have been influential. The broadsheet media has sold stuff like "The IT Crowd" and "Lab Rats" and whateverthefuckelse as "a return to big, loud comedy", etc.. The obsession with comedy "movements" and the associated exlusion of shows that don't fit in with what's currently fashionable remains a concern.

[Boulder]

Good article, apart from the Futurama bashing. I never realized there was one particular person so largely responsible for that brand of joke, so it's interesting to find out. There's more to it than just the jokes themselves, though. When the show started, the main thing it had going for it was how honest it was. It was an incredibly witty, but not too-greatly-skewed satire of American life. The characters (supporting and major) represented archetypes closely associated with suburbia- Homer, the average boor, Marge, the harried housewife, Lisa, the unnoticed genius, Bart, the hellraising brat, and Maggie, the ".3" of the 2.3 children. The show adhered to the characterization, stayed honest, and with good writing, humor rose organically.

They've been showing a lot of the earlier episodes (Seasons 3-4) on TV over here lately, and they never fail to blow me away. Just yesterday was the Mr. Plow episode, and when Homer considers buying the plow, he fantasizes about using it to move protesters at the White House at the behest of George Bush (Sr.). One of the protesters is carrying a sign that says "Give me money to do nothing." That's it, just a little, almost throw-away joke that gets across so much about Homer's beliefs and intelligence. It stays true to the character, and even if it paints a picture with which we don't personally agree, it doesn't make Homer any less lovable.

[Emperor Fuckshit]

^ I re-watched "Lisa on Ice" recently, and almost cried during the final scene. I will willingly admit to this for the purpose of uncovering what went wrong with "The Simpsons".

[Boulder]

^ I re-watched "Lisa on Ice" recently, and almost cried during the final scene. I will willingly admit to this for the purpose of uncovering what went wrong with "The Simpsons".

Some of those older episodes had such great moments in terms of reminding viewers "hey, they're a family, they love each other." One of my favorites is from "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?" where at the very end, as the Simpsons solemnly drive back to Springfield, Bart just goes "Y'know, Dad, I thought your car was pretty cool." Homer replies, "Thanks, boy. I was waiting for someone to say that."

EDIT: And on a separate, but related note, that episode was filled with hilarious jokes. One of my favorites.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Boulder

[New Damage]

Don't forget the one where Homer meets his mother and she has to go back on the run, where Homer is watching the stars on the bonnet of his car to close it. That's one that gets to me.

[Boulder]

Not to belabor the point, but I've been thinking about how deeply situational the humor was in the earlier episodes, and it's incredible by today's standards. In "Bart the Genius," the eventual denouement and resolution comes with Bart admitting his sham to Homer and getting chased through the house. Bart (naked) runs past Lisa and Marge, with Homer chasing after him. Without even turning her head, Lisa just goes "Mom... I think Bart's dumb again." It's not that the line itself was fantastic or anything, it was just executed so perfectly in combination with the preceding 22 minutes.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Boulder

[apsham]

This topic fails because The Simpsons didn't go bad, it just changed.. and it's still awesome. It is SO established that when they make a joke based off how a character is, it instantly clicks as funny. I like the way that things have went.

[LUKIE]

I don't know the last time I laughed at a Simpsons episode, but really, that doesn't make it a "bad show" in essence. You can tell they put a crapload of emphasis in making it look "realistic", and it probably has some of the best animation on tv at the moment, apart from maybe... Spongebob Squarepants. Seems they went for a more visually appealing show, then a "laugh out loud all the time" kind of show. The stories in The Simpsons have been shit, with a lot of stuff revolving around Homer being just ridiculously contrived, which makes no sense for a show like The Simpsons.

Then in contrast, you look at Family Guy, which is horribly animated in essence (apart from what is really needed), but it's all about the jokes and the storyline.

Then American Dad blends the Simpsons great animation techniques, with the great storylines, and we have a winner.

Does this post even make sense?