Has the Simpsons Lost It?

[simpspin]

This thread is to free up the S13 Blu Ray thread.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by mayorofsmpleton

In my opinion the show has severely drifted AWAY from this type of episode in the recent episodes (at least the last few seasons).

They've gone back to having guest stars playing "characters" and not themselves.

The jury's out on if they'll continue this, otherwise, it could be just a fluke for a few seasons. Or maybe they realized throwing celebs onto the screen hasn't helped the falling ratings over the past few years.

They've also gone back to taking many more political/social stabs at many topics.

...and failed. Some of this so called 'satire' in the past few seasons has been a bunch of bad punditry with run-on jokes. IMO, the last decent satire the Simpsons pulled off was in S14 when Homer was commenting on airplanes flying "Back over the homes of poor people."

You posted a graph from IMDB? Seriously? All that shows is that many people online jumped on a bandwagon of the meme "The Simpsons has sucked for so long..."

That's a pretty bold claim, like you can actually vouch for everyone who cast a vote! However, where you get your feet wet is the only posters who posted obvious voting to tip the scales were the people who voted "10s" for next season's "Elementary School Musical" (South Park Already did It!), and that's really lame. But if you want true bandwagoning, saying the show's getting better has been the en vogue thing to do. There's always an excuse:

1. "Al Jean's taking over from Scully to make the show better!"
--Sort of agree with this, but he didn't leave and the show is staler than week-old pizza.

2. "The work on the Simpsons Movie will inspire the writers!"
--Uh, if you guys say so...

3. "The writers aren't as distracted making the movie, so they have time to make the show better!
--Wait, you people just said...!?

4. "The show's funnier/awesomer now that it's in HD!!!!
--How does being in "HD" and looking like a flash video (with stiff, lifeless animation) make it better?

In one form or another people have been expressing these exact argument for years. The problem is that it never seems to last. The show has a well established golden age in its first eight seasons or so, but there is no second or third peak era that lots of people will point to as being great. In this argument the show has always gotten better “recently”, or “in the last few seasons”, or some other nebulous time frame. It’s a cop out used by people who want to find something – anything – positive to say so they don’t sound like cranky old farts.

I know because I was part of the crowd who felt that way too. Realistically though I hadn't seen many of the episodes since season 12. After going through and watching them all I find that it's a show that went through a low period and has been "reborn" as something different. If I was like a lot of other "internet" voters I'd have voted all those later episodes low too -- and like many of the people who voted -- I doubt I'd have seen them before voting.

I'm not debating that you know what you want, I'm just letting the numbers speak for themselves and I doubt there's THAT many people who voted "low" because they had nothing better to do. I'm guessing it's not many more than the people who gave a perfect score to an episode that hasn't even aired yet. (And I've seen every episode since the Ullman show, in order, but I've never voted on the IMDB.)

The graph shows nothing except that there's a "general opinion" that the show went downhill and nobody has to have SEEN those episodes to actually vote on them... it's irrelevant and proves nothing.

Again, did you go in and do a background check on EVERY voter? Really, if the show was 'getting better', I'm sure there would've been some people happy to tip the scales back to even out the chart just because they could've...and they did.

I do agree that saying the show is "Back like it was in seasons 6-8!" and similar comments aren't really warranted. It's not BACK to anything... it's evolved into something different. It's almost a parody of the show it once was... which doesn't mean it's necessarily bad...

I think it is. People have been saying the show's been "getting better" since Season 11. Every year, someone is always saying this season will be better because they don't want the next season to look like the past season. It's also funny that Entertainment Weekly did a Top 50 best Simpsons episode poll when the show was celebrating the 300th episode and all but one were from the first 9 seasons. So, when the show was 'getting better" and was "reborn as something different", people still didn't care.

...it's just a DIFFERENT show...

That's the understatement of the year!

...one that I've found myself enjoying again after many years of assuming it had just drifted into mediocrity -- like many of the fans who stopped watching but continue to comment on how "terrible" the show has become -- despite not having seen many of the so-called "terrible" new episodes.

Again, how do you know what other people do, or don't do?

While I have no sympathy whatsoever for this argument I do have some sympathy for the impulse behind the "it's getting better!" excuse. So many fans are so desperate to like the show again that they can’t bring themselves to snuff out that last trembling ember of hope. I get that. I understand that, but the real Simpsons is dead, it died a long time ago and it’s not coming back. And pretending that it might won’t make it.

Why do people blow the Simpsons way out of perportion? It's a funny cartoon. Just leave it at that.

Being a cartoon and being well-written aren't two mutually exclusive concepts. Saying "it's a cartoon" means saying little at all.

Originally Posted by Imrahil2001

Yup. These other guys are BORING. Quit BORING EVERYONE.

What happened to C'est la vie?

[Sabotage]

With time things change. I don't know what you're expecting from the show. Were you expecting them to continue to reference things that happened in the 90's? If the show lived in the past and didn't stay current it would have been cancelled many years ago. Sure I'd say that it wasb etter back in the day but that's not to say it's not good now.

[Mike53421]

Uhh... YEAH. Old Yeller needs to be put down but I don't think anybody will object at the same time if Fox keeps the show running for the next 50 years.

[ArmyOfDarknessAW]

I liked it more in the past but i will take it the way it is over being cancelled. I will take medicore Simpsons over no Simpsons.

[RudyC]

as soon as season 10 started... and they had alec baldwin guest starring.. i was like... wow.. this show sucks now...

i stopped watching until i bought season 20 on blu-ray because have the season was in HD..

yea.. simpsons changed from being like a soap opera cartoon.... into just a joke and gag s filled show.. however i found myself enjoying myself again..
i will continue to buy the HD show on blu-ray..

i will forever miss out on seasons 10-19...

[Evra]

Originally Posted by ArmyOfDarknessAW

I liked it more in the past but i will take it the way it is over being cancelled. I will take medicore Simpsons over no Simpsons.

I felt that way......until I found South Park.

[simpspin]

From the S13 thread.

Originally Posted by mayorofsmpleton

True, but to play devil's advocate -- all scripted content typically sheds viewers as it goes on. The Simpsons are still typically one of the highest rated shows on the air in the coveted 18-49 demographic. It's actually stabilized in the last several years.

No, not really. Every season the average of viewers keeps falling off. Reruns of Family Guy are the same as, or more than new Simpsons episodes.

I can't possibly. I can, however, vouch for the fact that an IMDB.com poll is in no way accurate from a scientific standpoint.

But you keep insisting everyone who voted 'didn't see the episodes' or 'voted to make the current show look bad.' You can't dismiss my view of the info available and call your assumptions truth.

It's been "in vogue" to call the show crappy for at least the last 10 years (as I said -- I was doing it myself... and I probably should have been watching the show I was saying "Has gone so downhill!")

No. Having been to all the Simpson's message boards since Scully took over, there's been a general consensus the show has gotten better since Jean took over. The list of excuses on how it's improved has been repeated ad nauseum. Saying the show was 'declining' was the hip term in the 90's when the executive producers were changing and the fans of one style were complaining when the show's tone changed every two seasons till the 9th season. The "Comic Book Guy" obsessive nerd who ridiculed everything was a byproduct of the alt.tv.simpsons newsgroup. Compare that to the 'it's getting better' fans who think the show is constantly improving because the stagnant style of the show is being mistaken for safe and familiar.

As you said yourself... people already voted on episodes that have YET to air. Meaning that to vote on the quality of the show one does not have to have even viewed it.

I said that was the only clear evidence of voter 'fraud' because it's the only provable fake votes. Everything other vote for the past episodes shouldn't be so easily dismissed because they don't gibe with your viewpoint.

To put it simply...here's what is more than likely the case... "I hate that the Simpsons isn't as good as it used to be. I have endless free time and no life so I'm going to vote on IMDB that every episode since season 10, 11, 12, etc. has SUCKED -- despite not having actually even seen it." etc.

You really got to get over the 'voting without seeing it' idea. I can see a few people doing that, but thousands?

You claim to and are more than welcome to have an opinion on the quality -- but a poll on IMDB does little to convince me that any of the people who voted have even seen the episodes -- and even if they had, I'd rarely trust IMDB to tell me someone is "good" based on the votes of the users. Have you read the message boards there? It's like entering the gates of Hell.

It's an unmoderated mess, no doubt, but if you're going to find an opinion poll that says the show is almost, or sort-of still great, then good luck to you. Whether these 'have watched, or have not watched' fans vote, the result will still come back as the show started to tank after the 10th season.

That's the point... there's isn't some magical "time" that the show improved... just like IMO there isn't a time when it stopped being so great... There are more than a few clunkers in those first 8 seasons -- and I find some from seasons 1-3 downright unwatchable -- just as I found many from the last few seasons to be.

I find the first 3 seasons vastly superior to what came after because I'm not looking for a zany kiddie cartoon where Homer gets hurt over and over again. (Season 2's Homer trying to jump the gorge was the exception, not the norm back then.) Compare that to today's Simpsons where nearly episode has Homer screaming and whining over something. Ugh.

You underestimate the average internet user's ability to waste time when there's "nothing better to do." Some people sit and refresh pages to vote over and over again on "Save My Canceled Show!" sites, etc. The internet is filled with people who have nothing but free time and very often nothing better to do than to vote on useless polls.

I doubt with over 469 episodes to vote on, the amount of time wasted votes would pale in comparison to the number of actual votes.

Right, GUESSING. Which as I said means very little. The only way to truly get a great idea of the "quality" to ask opinions of people who still watch -- many of the people who trash the show have stopped watching it years ago. Either way -- it's hard to get a general idea of quality from mass opinion anyway.

You really have to drop the notion that the critics are talking from an unfortified position of ignorance. There are still people who watch it just for the sake of seeing every episode, yet won't depend of the show since it's the best thing since oxygen.

Will it ever get back to the point it once was? Probably not... as it's evolved into something very different.

Why? Why is "evolving" the only way to survive these days? To reach a larger fan base? Metallica has changed their sound a lot but they've tripled their fan base, does this make them a better band? No, it makes them a versatile one. But as Metallica went from hard to soft the Simpsons have gone from clever to dimwitted slapstick. Dont get me wrong, I love dimwitted slapstick, but only when it's funny.

(Also, since "evolving" is such a buzz word in this topic, what traits did the show drop in from the 12-16 episodes and what traits did the Simpsons aquire in the past 4 seasons that made it better?)

Ironically, Mike Reiss, one of the original Simpsons writers said: "The Simpsons change the way people change. Think of your grandparents. The either get boring or crazy and weird. I like to think ‘The Simpsons’ has gotten crazy and weird."

I’m sure Mr. Reiss meant “crazy and weird” in only the most positive way, but it’s not a good comparison. This is especially true when you consider that, when The Simpsons was still on the air, old people got it worse than any other group. Tacitly comparing the show to Grandpa Simpson is an admission of defeat, isn’t it? It means you’ve become everything you used to mock.

Everybody tolerates Grandpa, but nobody goes out of their way to spend time with him. And secretly they’re all just waiting for the clock to run out. That’s a pretty good description of Zombie Simpsons, and it’s not the least bit flattering or positive. We just want it to end so we can remember the good times instead of the sickly shadow that shits itself once per week. But if the best defense he has is comparing Zombie Simpsons to the doddering remains of a once vibrant person, well, that kinda says it all.

Another unscientific poll... the show was at it's highest ratings in those 9 seasons and it's likely the people voting have A) Not seen every one of those 300 episodes

How do you know? Did you camp out at EW?

and B) Are likely to vote on ones they remember fondly, etc... not ones they necessarily thought were "well written."

I think being 'well written' is a first step to 'remembering something fondly.'

I don't, which is why I don't take unscientific web-polls to be factual when there is little true data to back it up.

But you've 'scientifically' have proven:

--Critics don't watch the show
--internet polling is useless because the people who voted just wasted their time (and ours)
--The show is 'just' different, 'not' bad.

However, provided the critics didn't watch the episodes that doesn’t mean they don’t suck, nor does it mean they can’t say so as loudly and as often as possible.

I think this is where you're confusing the argument. I know the show as it was is "dead." It died a long time ago. The show we have now is not as good as the original show -- but it's hardly the drivel it's painted to be. Do I ever expect the original quality to return? No. It was a time and a place that's over and done.

Are you serious? The Modern Simpsons is old hat. They haven’t done anything creative or controversial in years, and the only time the show ever pops up on the non-Simpsons parts of the internet is when they do a travel episode or nakedly piggy back on someone else’s work. Zombie Simpsons itself is never news, the hook is always the place they’ve sent the family or that Celebrity X is guest voicing. This boredom with Springfield-only content includes fan interest as well. The only two examples of Zombie Simpsons in the top 100 rated episodes on IMDb we looked at were the 24 episode and the one where they copied a YouTube video. If you’re a smart and ambitious comedy writer who thinks the world of your talent, Zombie Simpsons provides no platform to show what you can do. Cranking out cookie cutter episodes that vanish into the ever expanding garbage dump of forgettable pop culture about six seconds after they’re broadcast will never get anyone at The New York Times to call you brilliant.

I get what you're saying in that there are rabid fans intent on convincing people that the show is better than it ever was. IMO -- Seasons 17+ are better than the seasons 12-16 -- but the show as it is can't touch the "golden age."

Are you kidding? Seasons 17+ is the show falling into banality. Endless time wasting, run-on jokes, Homer even stupider than when Scully was in charge. Barf. I'd take Seasons 13-16 over the last 4 years...and yes, I've seen all of the episodes.

[qoute]I do, however, think it's recovered from a bad spell and has morphed into something worth watching again -- something like a parody of the original show. For me it works... but it's most definitely NOT the same show from seasons 1-8 -- heck... Season 4-8 aren't the same as seasons 1-3...[/quote]

Seasons 4-8 have more in common with 1-3 as there was a thread of quality than ran through the first 8 seasons. You can use connotative, ad hominem terms as they were 'too sitcommy', or 'too soap-oprah-ish'. The sly, undercurrent of sarcasm that made those episodes unique gave way to ******* Homer and loud, obnoxious "poochified" humor. The people who created the first 8 seasons made a cartoon that had depth and was 'adult' without being raunchy. The people who made the last 10 seasons of the Simpsons (and family guy) told everyone cartoons can only be totally random and senseless, otherwise, they're not 'funny'.

================================================== ======================

Also, from another message board, a poster commented on if the show can get back to 'classic' status:

"Not even if there was a major overhaul. Not even if the best writers could all come together. It isn't happening.

The Simpsons was a product of the 90's. It's a more specific satire than it shows itself as. And it's part of the evolution of television. Back in the day Bart t-shirts were banned because he was an offensive character. We scoff at this now, because there isn't a damn thing wrong with S1 or 2 episodes, but back then they were edgy. Shows have gotten increasingly edgier, a fair amount thanks to The Simpsons (no Bart, no Cartman, basically). For its time The Simpsons was edgy and a cutting edge satire... but then it became the mainstream, and it wasn't the edgy thing to watch anymore. Other shows have filled that void.

And The Simpsons can't keep up. It's impossible for it to. And it shouldn't try to, because it isn't its style. Any attempts it makes at it now just come across as lame because... well... that isn't the show, that isn't these characters. The characters are well-established and you can't just modernize them. They're from the 90's. Plain and simple.

It's not like this is exclusive to The Simpsons. All throughout the world of art, something has taken over something else as the new thing. And then something else will take that thing over. Just as neo-classicism gave way to romanticism gave way to academicisim gave way to realism gave way to modernism gave way to impressionism.

It's hard to be the rebel when you're the mainstream, and being the rebel was a really, really strong part of what made The Simpsons classic.

Also there's all that stuff about the lazy writing and the stiff animation and the general shoddy coasting effort that appears to be put forth the majority of the time now, because why the hell not, it's a household name and it's not going away anytime soon and look at all of that pretty, pretty money."

[mayorofsmpleton]

No, not really. Every season the average of viewers keeps falling off. Reruns of Family Guy are the same as, or more than new Simpsons episodes.

The show averages over a 3 demo almost every week -- which is a goldmine at this point in TV. Almost every show dips about 10-15% per season -- it's just the nature of the business. My point is that the last few years the show may not be pulling 25 million viewers like in the past -- but it's hardly a ratings sinkhole.

But you keep insisting everyone who voted 'didn't see the episodes' or 'voted to make the current show look bad.' You can't dismiss my view of the info available and call your assumptions truth.

Insisting? No. I don't "insist" they didn't see the episodes. My point is that there's no way to prove that they have so the study itself can't be taken as scientific fact. My assumptions are based on validity -- not truth in the numbers. There is no reason to believe viewer ratings on an internet poll represent the whole of the viewing public. That's just a fact. Otherwise Arrested Development and Veronica Mars would probably still be on the air as both were almost always the highest rated "save our show" in online polls.

Having been to all the Simpson's message boards since Scully took over, there's been a general consensus the show has gotten better since Jean took over. The list of excuses on how it's improved has been repeated ad nauseum. Saying the show was 'declining' was the hip term in the 90's when the executive producers were changing and the fans of one style were complaining when the show's tone changed every two seasons till the 9th season. The "Comic Book Guy" obsessive nerd who ridiculed everything was a byproduct of the alt.tv.simpsons newsgroup. Compare that to the 'it's getting better' fans who think the show is constantly improving because the stagnant style of the show is being mistaken for safe and familiar.

These are opinions of Simpsons fans. I'm talking about the general public (the 20+ million who USED to watch the show -- which has dwindled to the 6-10 million range) who have long abandoned the show and do not continue to watch but will be more than willing to chime in about "how much it sucks now." despite not having seen a new episode in years. Different demographics we're talking about. So no real argument here.

I said that was the only clear evidence of voter 'fraud' because it's the only provable fake votes. Everything other vote for the past episodes shouldn't be so easily dismissed because they don't gibe with your viewpoint.

It isn't because they don't match my viewpoint. It's because there's no scientific data to suggest it's truthful. I can go into the street and poll 100 New Yorkers about their opinions of The Simpsons but any number of things can skew those results. These are opinions of of readers of a specific website and we've already seen how easy it is to post fake information at the IMDB or skew the results of "polls" so any rankings have to be taken with a grain of salt... not as scientific "fact."

You really got to get over the 'voting without seeing it' idea. I can see a few people doing that, but thousands?

All it takes is 1-5 people with a whole lot of free time to screw the results of internet polls. It's why studios, etc. don't take them very seriously.

I think the issue that we're stuck on is that you imply that because a lot of people "consider" the show to have tanked after season 10 it is therefore of bad quality.

I'd argue what we have here is more a situation similar to "Gigli" which was released theatrically and bombed. It became the movie to mock for being "so bad." How many people actually saw it? I certainly didn't... but I recall laughing along when someone mentioned it. People make opinions without seeing media all the time -- which is the only point I'm trying to make. That die-hard simpsons fans can argue to death when the show "stopped" being good...

In my opinion it stopped for a while and then became something else I enjoy. Not nearly as much as the early years but far from the nearly unwatchable mess that was the "slump" years -- as I call them.

I doubt with over 469 episodes to vote on, the amount of time wasted votes would pale in comparison to the number of actual votes.

So because there are many episodes it's less likely people might not vote accurately? This is pure speculation.

You really have to drop the notion that the critics are talking from an unfortified position of ignorance.

If by critics you mean fans that are complaining. Otherwise the show is typically very critically acclaimed still.

There are still people who watch it just for the sake of seeing every episode, yet won't depend of the show since it's the best thing since oxygen.

It's kind of sad that people would sit and watch something they despise just out of habit.

Why is "evolving" the only way to survive these days? To reach a larger fan base? Metallica has changed their sound a lot but they've tripled their fan base, does this make them a better band? No, it makes them a versatile one. But as Metallica went from hard to soft the Simpsons have gone from clever to dimwitted slapstick.

It has to do with style and the state of comedy. It's a comedy show in its 20th season. It's not that they "evolve" to survive... it's that after 20 years on the air the show naturally evolves into something else. The people working on it find certain jokes/situations work better than others, etc. I personally think the show went from cutesy (1-3) to clever (4-8) to dimwitted (9-12) to an odd mixture of all (13-15) and then back to clever... but in a much different way. (16+)

It's not that it "has" to evolve... but as you stated. Metallica evolved to fit the music scene. Hard metal was heading out and a softer sound was becoming more popular. The Simpsons as it was "died" in season 8 -- as you stated. If you're upset that they can't keep churning out the same thing over and over then that's another matter. My opinion is that the show needs to be looked at now how we might look at SNL... it's a TV staple. It's got "eras" it has a style of comedy that closer matches the style of comedy present in the year 2010...

(Also, since "evolving" is such a buzz word in this topic, what traits did the show drop in from the 12-16 episodes and what traits did the Simpsons aquire in the past 4 seasons that made it better?)

We already discussed. The annoying "guest stars" playing themselves for little/no reason other than to "be there" have steady declined and instead we're getting back to the original concept of having guest actors/celebs playing a "character" on the show again.

It's a little more politically/socially satirical -- it always was but it's become a little more biting in how it's willing to stab at certain pop culture references, political arguments, etc.

The show is a little more self-referential, etc. It's hard to argue "quality" because as I've said many times -- it's a matter of opinion. I personally find the last few seasons to have outperformed "Family Guy" in quality. On the same token -- the latest Futurama episodes to be airing knock anything the Simpsons has done the last few seasons out of the water. So it's all subjective.

How do you know? Did you camp out at EW?

No. but I know the validity of "polls" done via magazines/internet to rarely be accurate. That's just common sense. You keep asking me to prove how I "don't know something."

I don't have to prove it. The EW poll was YOUR contribution to the thread which means it's up to you to prove the validity. It's a poll done to rank Simpsons episodes in a magazine that has its own devoted following -- that itself has been critical of the "slump" the simpsons went through.

But you've 'scientifically' have proven:
"-Critics don't watch the show"
When did I state this? Critics watch the show every year when FOX sends out screeners of their shows for review. The show typically gets high marks from reviewers. It's merely the fans of the "golden" era that call the new episodes "garbage." The movie was also highly regarded.

"internet polling is useless because the people who voted just wasted their time (and ours)"

It's useless because there's no way to prove the validity of the results because the process of voting is too simple and easy to manipulate. It has nothing to do with time wasted.

"The show is 'just' different, 'not' bad."

Yes. In other words -- the show you long for it to be will never return because it's a style of comedy inherent to the 90's and the world of comedy has evolved since then. The Simpsons has also shaped modern animation on TV and therefore has naturally evolved into something else. Something not as strong as the heyday, but hardly worth calling "crap."

When you say "critics" I'm assuming you mean fans.

Yes. They can say loudly and proudly and as often as they'd like that the show sucks. Just like people who have a different opinion are allowed to respond with theirs.

Are you kidding? Seasons 17+ is the show falling into banality. Endless time wasting, run-on jokes, Homer even stupider than when Scully was in charge. Barf. I'd take Seasons 13-16 over the last 4 years...and yes, I've seen all of the episodes.

Again, opinion. I find "Stupid" Homer to be quite hilarious. He's pretty damn stupid in the early seasons too...

That other message board post sums it up. It's a product of the 90s (which I said earlier in my post as well) and it's never going to come back. However, I don't think the show is a "sinkhole" of bad writing in recent years. Is it as good as the prime? No.

It's also hardly the worst animated show on television and I appreciate what it has to say.

I think we're arguing apples/oranges here bud. What you're upset about is something that isn't going to change. The show won't ever return to its glory days... so if you dislike it so much -- stop watching it. If anything -- it's only going to continue to evolve the longer it stays on the air because it's now a produce of 2010+, etc.

Look back fondly on seasons 1-8 but for those of us who still find something enjoyable about later seasons -- why does it bother you? I personally don't think the show's humor is dim-witted. I think Homer behaves that way but I think it's Simpsons satire as usual. Regardless I'll look forward to watching the latest season and hopefully enjoying it. Not sure why you're bothering to watch anymore though since it doesn't seem like your kind of show.

PS - I own the first 10 seasons but stopped at that point because I too felt it was "the golden age." I may not want to own all the later seasons but again -- I wouldn't call them unwatchable for the world. They're a different style of comedy that I enjoy very much in a very different way.

[ts0323]

I'm in the minority, but I never really cared for the Simpsons.
Just not my thing, I guess.

[charlie swords]

like any show that has a long run, it has changed over the years and has it's good episodes and it's bad episodes. But i dont think it should or will be cancelled until Matt Groening says it's time to stop.

I do feel, however, that Fox needs to stop with the Seth McFarlane lovefest. Family Guy has gotten way to repetitive, Cleveland Show is just terrible and American Dad, well, i can tolerate that for some reason.

My solution, bring Futurama Back in. Give Groeing 8pm -9pm for Simpsons & Futurama and give McFarlane 9-10 for whatever he wants to do with it.

[Gamma_Winstead]

Futurama is back. It's on comedy central, Thursdays at ten.

[BluRayTim]

Originally Posted by ts0323

I'm in the minority, but I never really cared for the Simpsons.
Just not my thing, I guess.

I don't like The Simpsons, either. I did the first ten seasons. After that, it is merely different interpretations of the same thing over and over again for years and years on end.

Beavis and Butt head is far (at this point, indescribably) better than The Simpsons, South Park (which was good the first five years but is now merely different interpretations of the same thing over and over again for years and years on end) and Family Guy (which, like South Park, was good the first five years but is now merely different interpretations of the same thing over and over again for years and years on end).

Has Beavis and Butt head aired back on the MTV channels, yet? Hopefully, Beavis and Butt head's revival will lead to the indescribably needed demise of Family Guy, The Simpsons and South Park!

[Alpha]

Has the Simpsons Lost It?

It lost it years ago.

That being said, if there's nothing else on, I'm game.

[simpspin]

Originally Posted by mayorofsmpleton

The show averages over a 3 demo almost every week -- which is a goldmine at this point in TV. Almost every show dips about 10-15% per season -- it's just the nature of the business. My point is that the last few years the show may not be pulling 25 million viewers like in the past -- but it's hardly a ratings sinkhole....Insisting? No. I don't "insist" they didn't see the episodes. My point is that there's no way to prove that they have so the study itself can't be taken as scientific fact.

If the show is is only getting 1/5th of the viewers it used to that seems to match up with the latter seasons falling into the lower voting percentile on the IMDB graph.

]My assumptions are based on validity -- not truth in the numbers. There is no reason to believe viewer ratings on an internet poll represent the whole of the viewing public. That's just a fact. Otherwise Arrested Development and Veronica Mars would probably still be on the air as both were almost always the highest rated "save our show" in online polls.

But in this case, there's nothing at stake when someone votes on their favorite episode and while I doubt the IMDB poll is 100 percent objective barometer of what's good, it's a good indicator of when the better episodes of the Simpsons are compared to other Simpsons episodes. They're voting for their favorite episodes, and not 'against' the show itself and the episodes that are the majority of the favorites are from the first 10 seasons, the same 'first' ten seasons people quoted from on the Spurlock special.

It isn't because they don't match my viewpoint. It's because there's no scientific data to suggest it's truthful. I can go into the street and poll 100 New Yorkers about their opinions of The Simpsons but any number of things can skew those results. These are opinions of of readers of a specific website and we've already seen how easy it is to post fake information at the IMDB or skew the results of "polls" so any rankings have to be taken with a grain of salt... not as scientific "fact."

Then you look at multiple sources, views, blogs, message boards, online articles, or even speak to people face to face. After a while you get the general picture of when the show started to fall out of flavor for the 'majority' of the viewers. All of this 'they haven't seen it', 'aren't representative of the population', 'arent the type who watch it,' 'why are you watching it if you hate it?' or any other nebulous reason you try to make the people who aren't happy with the show to not have any credibility, it's almost as if this line of reasoning is to make the modern Simpsons critic proof.

All it takes is 1-5 people with a whole lot of free time to screw the results of internet polls. It's why studios, etc. don't take them very seriously.

I know, that's why studios have focus groups (aka inmates running the asylum). Hell, the Simpsons movie was rewritten 150+ times to appeal to focus groups because the writers needed ways to justify Homer getting hurt in front of people who've never seen the show.

I think the issue that we're stuck on is that you imply that because a lot of people "consider" the show to have tanked after season 10 it is therefore of bad quality.

Reread my above statement.

I'd argue what we have here is more a situation similar to "Gigli" which was released theatrically and bombed. It became the movie to mock for being "so bad." How many people actually saw it? I certainly didn't... but I recall laughing along when someone mentioned it. People make opinions without seeing media all the time -- which is the only point I'm trying to make. That die-hard simpsons fans can argue to death when the show "stopped" being good...

I'm glad you like to catagorize us 'diehards'. But it may surprise you that there are more types of fans than the "everything the show does is holy" and the "everything after Season 10 sux!" crowd. Believe me, I WANT to like the show, and I WANT the show to be great, but sometimes I have to wade through 18 hellishly bad episodes out of 22 episodes to find the 4 that are great. (and no, I don't the terrible ones in reruns)

In my opinion it stopped for a while and then became something else I enjoy. Not nearly as much as the early years but far from the nearly unwatchable mess that was the "slump" years -- as I call them.

Eh, the show nowadays is 'the slump years.' Long, drawn out jokes, dated 'satire' and even though it's not the show's fault, the episodes are 2 minutes shorter for more advertising, the pace destroying 4 act structure, and despite being 2 minutes shorter, they have couch gags that last over a minute long for some of the episodes.

So because there are many episodes it's less likely people might not vote accurately? This is pure speculation.

There's so many episodes to vote for, which is a positive thing to do and wouldn't really attract negative people, the results clearly show when the show's best eras were. It's not like the first episode had the majority of the votes and the graph was perfect slide down to zero by season 21. A slide like that would be too obvious of voter fraud.

If by critics you mean fans that are complaining. Otherwise the show is typically very critically acclaimed still.

By who? IGN? (HA!) The movie was mostly 'meh' and hardly any critics (that watched it) said it was THAT good, but it was the mostly PC: "While not as good as the show in its prime, it's better than the current show."

It has to do with style and the state of comedy. It's a comedy show in its 20th season. It's not that they "evolve" to survive... it's that after 20 years on the air the show naturally evolves into something else. The people working on it find certain jokes/situations work better than others, etc. I personally think the show went from cutesy (1-3) to clever (4-8) to dimwitted (9-12) to an odd mixture of all (13-15) and then back to clever... but in a much different way. (16+)

Seasons 1-3 isn't cutesy, it's actually quite dark and had dramady feel to it. No, it wasn't the sopranos and people weren't getting whacked, but beneath the family being goofy, the show had a dramatic undercurrent to it. My all time favorite episode "Lisa's Substitute" was the first time I realized this show was more than just funny, it had a lot of heart to it and levels of realism that wasn't attempted before (in my lifetime) in animated show. (note: realism doesn't mean 100 percent realistic)

Seasons 16+ is 'cutsey'. It's all about the family trying to be silly and there's nothing serious, or satirical about it. Yeah, they address modern topics, but that's an allusion/reference to somewhat current events, and not satire. Also, the last few seasons violates another personal rule of mine: A cool show makes it's own cool, a pathetic TV show simply copies whatever seems cool in pop culture. The Satire in the modern Simpsons no more 'biting' than the parody that thinks it's as satire in any recent "______ Movie." What the current show is is as show getting away with lazy storytelling and limp satire because it's popular (cute) enough that no one will care.

(The upcoming "Twilight" parody in the Halloween episode most likely won't be a satire of anything, but will most likely be Twilight being told with Simpsons characters.)

It's not that it "has" to evolve... but as you stated. Metallica evolved to fit the music scene. Hard metal was heading out and a softer sound was becoming more popular. The Simpsons as it was "died" in season 8 -- as you stated. If you're upset that they can't keep churning out the same thing over and over then that's another matter.

Hold on. It wasn't like the Simpsons 'gradually' changed, it was guy who was hell-bent on changing the style of comedy from clever to slapstick. In a span of 3 seasons, the show produced my favorite season, season 7, to the then worst season, season 10 (which I still find terrible today). Mike Scully even admitted in a radio interview for the bbc years ago he made the show so his kids could 'get' the jokes, he admitted he's kind of lazy, and he loved Homer being (then) overly dumb. And if anyone at the time complained on the internet, the hack writing staff mocked them with the CBG so no one would take them seriously.

My opinion is that the show needs to be looked at now how we might look at SNL... it's a TV staple. It's got "eras" it has a style of comedy that closer matches the style of comedy present in the year 2010...

The Simpsons has the same characters and is an animated sitcom while SNL is a sketch comedy. However, the modern Simpsons, with it's disjointed 4 act structure and sloppy writing could almost be deemed a sketch comedy that tries to look like a sitcom. That's evolution, I guess.

It's a little more politically/socially satirical -- it always was but it's become a little more biting in how it's willing to stab at certain pop culture references, political arguments, etc.

It might pay reference to these things. Biting? Heck no.

The show is a little more self-referential, etc. It's hard to argue "quality" because as I've said many times -- it's a matter of opinion.

Ratings? No, those don't matter...People on the street? No, that can be taken the wrong way...Multiple polls/interviews/online articles...No, those can't be trusted...

"-Critics don't watch the show"
When did I state this? Critics watch the show every year when FOX sends out screeners of their shows for review. The show typically gets high marks from reviewers. It's merely the fans of the "golden" era that call the new episodes "garbage."

Tit-for tat: fans who have a blinding loyalty to the show typically give it high remarks. The fanbase isn't just 'full of the hater' like you think, it also has people who'll give the show an "A" even if they haven't seen it.

The movie was also highly regarded.

No, it was based on the 'experience' of seeing it in a theater in a large audience. When the hoopla ended, most people didn't think it was this amazing body of work, but a slightly better than average modern episode.

"internet polling is useless because the people who voted just wasted their time (and ours)"

Yes. In other words -- the show you long for it to be will never return because it's a style of comedy inherent to the 90's and the world of comedy has evolved since then. The Simpsons has also shaped modern animation on TV and therefore has naturally evolved into something else. Something not as strong as the heyday, but hardly worth calling "crap."

A show that's labeled as being "smart, satirical and clever' should be smart satirical and clever, and should be held to those standards. The current show is none of those things--it's a show that's treated like tradition and having a bad opinion about it (in the eyes of the "True fans!") is like having a bad opinion about Christmas. Or as one moron said on alt.tv.simpsons around 2000: "The Simpsons is like sex--even when it's bad it's good.".

Again, opinion. I find "Stupid" Homer to be quite hilarious. He's pretty damn stupid in the early seasons too...

I mean, in the show’s golden age, Homer’s wackiness was channelled through displays of infantile happiness – giddily chasing the dog with the puffy tail, joyously fetching his giant foam cowboy hat and airhorn, caressing his half-eaten, mold-ridden giant hoagie even after it made him deathly ill, etc. There was a definite sense of sweetness about Homer back then – you really did gain affection for him in spite of his offensive characteristics. Alas, for about a decade now, Homer’s default “wacky” setting has been rage – flying off the handle, threatening others and bringing violence upon himself, and generally being an angry and obnoxious sociopath. Homer’s been crude from day one, but he wasn’t always a bastard.

One of these men is a relatable guy who screws up in hilarious ways. The other is self absorbed dickwad you wouldn’t even want dating, much less married to, any woman you care about.

That other message board post sums it up. It's a product of the 90s (which I said earlier in my post as well) and it's never going to come back. However, I don't think the show is a "sinkhole" of bad writing in recent years. Is it as good as the prime? No.

The writing these days should not be recieving a free pass "cuz it's the Simpsons!' either.

I think we're arguing apples/oranges here bud. What you're upset about is something that isn't going to change. The show won't ever return to its glory days... so if you dislike it so much -- stop watching it. If anything -- it's only going to continue to evolve the longer it stays on the air because it's now a produce of 2010+, etc.

The current show didn't just 'happen', the current show is full of tired writers trying to present you with a bunch of tired cliches that tries to be 'ironic' and tell you "this is what's funny, laff!!!!". What the show needs is new writers who know how to mix the more zany modern day stuff with the empathic stuff of the first 8 seasons.

Also, one aspect you fail to realize is I watched the show from the Ullman show till S9 with no real complaints. The show had more styleistic changes than the last 11 years of the Simpsons put together. It's not the 'change of style', it's the lack of changing of style that annoys me.

Look back fondly on seasons 1-8 but for those of us who still find something enjoyable about later seasons -- why does it bother you? I personally don't think the show's humor is dim-witted. I think Homer behaves that way but I think it's Simpsons satire as usual.

The Simpsons used to be a crude show that made fun of everything deserving of ridicule, yet was seemingly designed to appeal to everyone. That's why it won. Plus, it featured truly meaningful characters, which gave the show definite momentum that has helped carry it these long years. Compare that kind of satire to the satire of today which is about as subtle as a bulldozer and screams at you like a two year old crying for attention. If the show was "satire as usual", I'd have a lot less to complain about!

Regardless I'll look forward to watching the latest season and hopefully enjoying it. Not sure why you're bothering to watch anymore though since it doesn't seem like your kind of show.

I have a duel view: I watch it for the occasional good episode, but I also have morbid curiosity over how much of a train wreck it becomes.

PS - I own the first 10 seasons but stopped at that point because I too felt it was "the golden age." I may not want to own all the later seasons but again -- I wouldn't call them unwatchable for the world. They're a different style of comedy that I enjoy very much in a very different way.

Here's an old post from alt.tv.simpsons I'll end on:

"The responsibility of the writers is to produce a winning show. If that
means wracking their brains to craft universally-appealing and meaningful
satire in a world populated by realistic yet hilarious characters, then we
all benefit. It is a dose of class dressed up to appeal to anyone. However,
if producing a winning show means pandering to the lowest common denominator
and appealing to our insatiable lust for decadence, schadenfreude, and
cultural bias, then we all lose-even those of us who believe we have won."

[Jellybeans]

I honestly think so

I preferred the older Simpsons episodes

I also prefer SouthPark to The Simpsons

[Anthony P]

Has the Simpsons Lost It?

no

[SlaughterX]

I think The Simpsons lost it charm years ago... maybe around the time the movie came out, but it hasn't been funny to me in a long time. I guess that's just what happesn to TV series that go on too long. It needs to die.