The Simpsons

[9 to 5]

No.

[Emperor Fuckshit]

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.

How can that be when the characterisation is so inconsistent and is dispensed with whenever it's convenient for plot / gag reasons? Unless you mean the "when Homer did that stupid thing it was so like him, because he is a stupid guy who does stupid stuff!" base level of "characterisation." I also like the idea that a lengthy thread containing many people making interesting points about stuff "fails", and the antidote is a one line post saying "I like it, whatever." Message boarding!!!

As for the point about it being a well-animated show -- sure: it look nice, congratulations to the animators. Brilliant. But it's still marketed (and praised) as comedy, rather than as a series of twenty minute animation workshops. And I can't seriously believe that anyone tunes in to the show just to admire the animation quality every week.

Edited August 21, 2009 by Emperor Fuckshit

[livid]

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?

No, because you said that American Dad is a "winner".

And really, what is with all the conjecture about what made The Simpsons bad? In the end, The Simpsons isn't different from any other show in that after a few seasons of shows, they begin to go down hill. The writing will suffer because the writers are forced to come up with something better than what they wrote the season before and the season before that and the season before that and so on. Every long-running show will suffer from it; it inevitable. I just don't see why people would've expected The Simpsons to be any different. Not one person or one writer made the show bad, it just happens to suffer from the fact that it was too successful and any TV show that has a lot of success will suffer from the same thing. Anything less than the stellar episodes that made it so popular, are going to be viewed as failures because it doesn't live up to the hype that the viewer creates.

That's what makes Seinfeld as great as it is because they stopped before the show became a shell of it's former self because of what hype it had to live up to.

[Evil Chase K]

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?

No, because you said that American Dad is a "winner".

And really, what is with all the conjecture about what made The Simpsons bad? In the end, The Simpsons isn't different from any other show in that after a few seasons of shows, they begin to go down hill. The writing will suffer because the writers are forced to come up with something better than what they wrote the season before and the season before that and the season before that and so on. Every long-running show will suffer from it; it inevitable. I just don't see why people would've expected The Simpsons to be any different. Not one person or one writer made the show bad, it just happens to suffer from the fact that it was too successful and any TV show that has a lot of success will suffer from the same thing. Anything less than the stellar episodes that made it so popular, are going to be viewed as failures because it doesn't live up to the hype that the viewer creates.

That's what makes Seinfeld as great as it is because they stopped before the show became a shell of it's former self because of what hype it had to live up to.

This. I really think that it's just the fact that the show's been on forever. I've watched some of the new episodes and while they're not horrible to me, they're just not as memorable because it feels like it's all been done before.

I would imagine it's hard to come up with great show ideas consistently for 20+ years.

But one thing I did notice is that somewhere along the way the show seems to have lost it's heart. It seems that nowadays the show is more about trying to be funny and making jokes and less and less about the journey of the characters and the family. There's less "Lisa On Ice" and "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou" episodes each season it seems and that's sad.

The audience used to care for and about the characters and now that connection just doesn't seem to be there.

[Toe]

One thing that bugs me about the Simpsons is that they seem to always have a montage with licensed music in each new episode.

[wolves]

The Simpsons started going downhill once they abandoned what was great about it. They started caring way too much on pop culture and forced jokes instead of what was already funny, the characters themselves and their quirks. I haven't watched a new episode in years but I've been buying the older seasons on DVD and it's sort of sad to see just how jam packed those episodes were with memorable lines and jokes.

On the subject of Family Guy/American Dad (it's the same damn show to me), it's just not funny to me. I don't get what people like about Family Guy. I even watched an entire episode the other night and didn't laugh once. Not even a grin or chuckle. It's the same joke over and over and over again. The flashback gag just doesn't do it for me. I'd rather watch an awful Simpsons episode then the greatest Family Guy episode of the week.

[LUKIE]

Family Guy/American Dad is completely different. Hell the animation production on American Dad is about 500 times that of Family Guy.

Family Guy is in your face, shock jokes (which is my kind of funny. Peter blowing up the childrens hospital instead of a billboard was just comedy gold). American Dad there is a fuckload of subtlty in it, which most people just won't get, because a lot of people don't like to think when they watch a show. Most people want toilet humour, which is what you get in the Simpsons these days. But toilet humour is a dead humour.

[livid]

You're right, the comedy in American Dad does make me think...why it's on the air.

[Hornswoggle4PM]

So The Simpsons are toilet humour and Family Guy isn't?

To me, the jokes are still good, and there was one episode recently that provided endless laughs (one with Ned vs. Homer style storyline). And talking about Futurama, I can't see how you can criticise it that badly. There were about 9-10 bad episodes in all, and they had great moments as well.

I'm more worried about the increasingly bad episodes of Earl. The 2nd season especially was fantastic, but it's dropped so far, aside from a few good jokes.

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

I like the Grifty McGrift style lines

I quite like some of the newer Simpsons but only the ones that just go into weirdness or obscure lines of comedy. Some newer episodes are just a bit "slick" and shiny looking and wall of sound for me but there are still some gems and I'm not actually a big fan of the first series or so.

As for the negative vibes towards Futurama - boo on him. Though Futurama does have more freedom with what they can do because of its' setting, it's still magnificent.

[GA!]

Family Guy/American Dad is completely different. Hell the animation production on American Dad is about 500 times that of Family Guy.

Family Guy is in your face, shock jokes (which is my kind of funny. Peter blowing up the childrens hospital instead of a billboard was just comedy gold). American Dad there is a fuckload of subtlty in it, which most people just won't get, because a lot of people don't like to think when they watch a show. Most people want toilet humour, which is what you get in the Simpsons these days. But toilet humour is a dead humour.

Really?

American Dad is only a step above Family Guy's terrible animation; and its about as subtle as a car crash. Tell me one moment where a show's message isn't presented in MacFarlane's knuckle-headed South-Park-imitating really-fucking-obvious way. The Simpsons is built around obscure pop culture references, montages and slapstick these days. I'm struggling to come up even with singular toilet humour moments, never mind episodes built around it.

[Crybaby Bunting]

One of the Simpson's biggest downfalls was becoming so popular that celebrities felt that an appearance would be good for their careers, naturally as the writers couldn't turn down ANYONE they got their own hastily written episode or ended up being tacked onto a pre-existing plot.

I think that's what separates the Simpsons from the Family Guys and the South Parks. They could get away with parodying celebrities, sometimes without even naming them (eg creating an ott stereotype that could be mocked) but the Simpsons couldn't do anything THAT risky. Sure a lot of it is toilet humour, but it's a lot funnier than "I'm Tony Hawk, I'm endorsing my brand"

One of my favourite lines from an appearance was Buzz Aldrin saying "you know, second comes right after first", which worked because not only did Buzz Aldrin want to work with The Simpsons... but he was a great fit for the episode plot and was willing to allow himself to be mocked. Which is annoying, The Simpsons in its prime knew how to write a story with something extra but without it appearing forced. The episode about Michael Jackson, the episode where the Homer and the Cornershop Quartet meets George Harrison, I could go on forever.

I know a lot of it is down to staleness, but if you count up how many celebrities have been used over the past 7 or so seasons, and think that with a great storyline they could make sense and create an entertaining episode instead of product placement then it'd be at least twice as good as the stuff we're currently seeing.

[MalaCloudy Black]

The episode about Michael Jackson

Oh, man. Is that the one where Homer goes to the looneybin and meets the guy who thinks he's MJ or am I thinking of another episode? Because if that's the episode, that episode's so good.

[King Ellis]

I watched it again a few weeks ago (for obvious reasons)and it has some great moments. Particularly:

"We call this guy The Chief. Been here since 1968, never says a word, never moves a muscle."

"Hello, Chief."

"Hello."

*Doctors rush in and swarm around The Chief*

"Well it about time someone reached out to me!"

That and the scene where Homer is in group therapy and he cannot grasp why the guy with Agoraphobia couldn't leave the house, especially where he sums it up at the end with "Pfft, baby." which leaves the guy with a brilliant look of shock and disbelief on his face.

[Lint]

I think King Of The Hill really went on to be what a definitive "animated sitcom" should be. Mike Judge really knew how to write comedy, whether it be the over the top in your face style of Beavis and Butthead or what was more subtle style of KOTH. Jokes that could be punchlined simply by Hank facepalming rather then an over the top sight gag

[MalaCloudy Black]

Cue GA any minute to blah blah blah King of the Hill sucks.

[Sousa]

^ 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".

God, I do the same thing pretty much every time I watch "And Maggie Makes Three" now that I have kids. Damned fatherhood turned me into a baby, I tells ya.

[GA!]

Cue GA any minute to blah blah blah King of the Hill sucks.

Fucking hell Cloudy... You don't see me referring back to everything you've ever hated.

[Dynamite]

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.

There was an episode where Bart and Lisa confronted the writer of 'Cosmic Wars' (a parody of Star Wars) and they told him something along the lines of 'people don't care about the graphics, they fell in love with the characters' (probably horribly misquoted but the point remains). Maybe if they listened to their own advice instead of recycling old storylines and characters but adding a brand new shiny intro then it would still be one of the best programs on television.

[Skummy]

King Of The Hill went horribly downhill after the fifth season - before that it was rare you'd find a bad episode. Even the later stuff can still be quite entertaining, though - what's wonderful about it is that it doesn't need to be animated - there's very little in there that couldn't be achieved with live action, and the storylines never get too absurd. A ridiculous storyline by King Of The Hill standards would be a tame Simpsons episode.

As for the kind of "Grifty McGrift" joke killing The Simpsons? Bullshit they did. And I don't get where this idea that the jokes in question are aimed more at writers than the public are, as they are really quite funny. When Douglas Adams used the same comic device in practically everything he ever wrote - including an immensely popular radio show-cum-book-cum-TV series-come feature film - and when Terry Pratchett uses it liberally, is it just aimed at comic writers then too? No, of course it bloody isn't.

What brought the quality of the Simpsons down is the same thing that brings down any long-running comedy series, it's just been around too long. Simplistic characters only lend themselves to so many viable comedic situations, and it gets to a point where it can go one of three ways - the situations becoming increasingly absurd, the characters move further from their initial design (and more often than not lose much of their personality in the process, becoming little more than vehicles for jokes), and the humour becomes increasingly "meta" - rather than the comedy being derived from the situation, it's derived from assumptions about the characters based on prior knowledge - the worst example of this in Friends, where for the last few seasons there are more jokes about Chandler being sarcastic than there are actual instances of that happening.