6 Reasons Why "The Simpsons" Is Going Downhill
Anthony Torres
I just got done watching "Simpsoncalifblahblahblah" and
was disappointed to discover that it was the third subpar
"Simpsons" in a row. And here's my opinions why. Some of
these things are already familiar from countless recent
postings, but bear repeating.......
1) Jokes that go on too long
Like in "Mountain of Madness", Homer and Mr. Burns
speaking.... very.... slowly.... to stop further avalanches.
And in "Simpsoncali...", where Homer is shown thinking
about some ancient black and white cartoon. Funny for
the first few seconds, but overstayed its welcome. Showing
Homer humming along to the song in his head was overkill
as well.
2) Jokes that are EXPLAINED to me
This really got me angry during "Simpsoncali..." Two examples:
First, when "Krusty Komedy Klassic" spelled "KKK" on the set.
The writers could have just left it there and that would have been
a small subtle joke, but Krusty noticed it in a protracted way, and
gee, it turns out he's at the Apollo Theater and he gets pelted with
garbage. I dunno. It was a bit forced for my taste.
And not long after, Krusty does his "Mad About Shoe" sketch, and
gets pelted again. He then says "You're not gonna like our 'NYPD
Shoe' sketch." Okay, great. That's subtle and funny. End the
scene there. But noooo. Krusty then says "It's pretty much the
same thing."
Yes, I know! I GET THE JOKE!
3) Too many songs
Nuff said. Let's have a string of episodes that don't include songs.
The ones in "Simpsoncali..." were okay, but song lyrics rarely come
across as being more funny than good dialogue could be. And please,
let's not end another episode with a song until next season at the
earliest.
4) Shoehorning recurring characters into shows
Hey, I love Ned, Principal Skinner, Apu, Moleman, et al, but recent
episodes seem to try to give as many of them lines as humanly possible.
"Simpsoncali..." was an especially blatant example of this, particularly in the
one scene where everyone greets Sherry Bobbins. I was thinking, "Enough
already!" Perhaps I'm in the minority on this, but the reason I love so many of
the recurring characters is BECAUSE they are not featured often on the show.
The less often I see them, the more glad I am when they do turn up. Maybe
every third or fourth show would be better. Mind you, it wouldn't make the show
funnier, but it would keep it fresher.
5) Too many pop culture references
Whoever posted a message that included this complaint hit the nail on
the head. It IS like watching "Animaniacs" nowadays. And truly classic
comedy like "Monty Python" does avoid making such inevitably dated jokes.
So while "Reservoir Cats" was good, I could have done without Charles
Bronson on "Andy Griffith" (too absurd a situation to be hilarious-- still funny,
though).
6) Changing characters' histories and natures
A la "Hurricane Neddy." This has been discussed many times. I often think
we fans take the characters more seriously than the show's ever-changing
stable of writers.
So, there you have it. Having said all that, though, I still have to say that "The
Simpsons" remains a good, if not great show. It's well worth watching just
for those few big laughs I always get. (In "Simpsoncali..." those would be
the B&W cartoon in Homer's head, Barney's near-operatic singing voice, and
Groundskeeper Willie's "Maniac" routine. All were inspired.)
Well, that's my two cents. I hope the writers can get it together and produce
something as good as "Springfield Files" or "El Viaje." Those are my picks
for the best of the season so far (but I missed the first three eps of the
season, though).
Anthony Torres
Dearborn, Michigan
P.S.: By the way, I find the most intelligent and insightful opinions I read on
this ng are the least extreme. Usually, whenever anyone rates an episode
an A+ or says its the worst ever doesn't do a good job of explaining why. So
if you agree or disagree with any of the above, I'd be interested in reading why.
James P. Curtiss
I think the show has become "FOXified." I think Groening has turned the control
over the content of the show to the network and it is being turned into just
another Fox show. In other words, it sucks. Maybe this is why Fox has to
put their logo on the screen during the whole program, to let the viewer
know that Fox has altered the show to conform to its viewing standards.
Jesse Fuchs
In article <5dkd8l$8...@juliana.sprynet.com>, Anthony Torres <anth...@sprynet.com> wrote:
You know, this is probably the first pro or con criticism I've read on this newsgroup that actually
seems cogent and makes good points. Good job, Anthony. The latest episodes have been pretty good,
but I agree with all of his comments - they've been forcing jokes lately, and what's more, the cultural
references have gotten distressingly banal - that Quentin Tarentino I&S, in particular, was
crushingly obvious, relying on the kind of throwing out of cultural references that I'd expect from SNL or
some such crap. Today's was a little better, but still, it felt half-formed...one of my big problems with the
recent ones, and I can't really put my finger on it, is that the endings just aren't...satisfying? Except for
maybe the ski lodge episode, they all seem to just putter out. Comments?
Death To All False Metal,
jesse fuchs
--
"Semantics is my life."
-Det. Arthur P. Dietrich
Michael Baer
>1) Jokes that go on too long
...
>2) Jokes that are EXPLAINED to me
...
>3) Too many songs
...
>4) Shoehorning recurring characters into shows
...
>5) Too many pop culture references
...
>6) Changing characters' histories and natures
After Itchy, Scratchy, and Pootchie, I expected a post with such a subject
to be laughable. However, you hit the nail on the head. Kudos.
>So, there you have it. Having said all that, though, I still have to say that "The
>Simpsons" remains a good, if not great show.
Yeah. What else is on? (;
Michael
Aaron Varhola
Not necessarily....the symptoms are even more prevalent on other networks,
particularly "Must Explain the Jokes to the Viewers" TV on NBC. It's more
of a reflection on loathsome trends in comedy writing in general than on
OFF in particular.
Aaron Varhola | "The city of [Miami] was built on a stagnant
Portland, OR | swamp [100] years ago, and very little has
IFA Counsel | changed. It stank then, and it stinks now!"
YSFC #6 |-- Lisa Simpson, 7F02
Aaron Varhola
Anthony Torres <anth...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>I just got done watching "Simpsoncalifblahblahblah" and
>was disappointed to discover that it was the third subpar
>"Simpsons" in a row. And here's my opinions why. Some of
>these things are already familiar from countless recent
>postings, but bear repeating.......
>1) Jokes that go on too long
We had the infamous rake scene in 8F24.....
>2) Jokes that are EXPLAINED to me
>This really got me angry during "Simpsoncali..." Two examples:
>First, when "Krusty Komedy Klassic" spelled "KKK" on the set.
>The writers could have just left it there and that would have been
>a small subtle joke, but Krusty noticed it in a protracted way, and
>gee, it turns out he's at the Apollo Theater and he gets pelted with
>garbage. I dunno. It was a bit forced for my taste.
Reasons 1 and 2 aren't so much the fault of the Simpsons as the fault of
the general trend in comedy writing toward explaining jokes and milking
them for all they're worth.
Saturday Night Live started this trend several seasons ago, and NBC's Must
See TV (particularly "Friends", "The Single Guy", "Suddenly Susan", and
"Caroline in the City") made it popular. "Friends" is the most egregious
offender; it constantly insults its audience's intelligence with explained
jokes. I'm 26 years old, and the few times I've watched that show, I
didn't laugh with the studio audience, and thought the "funniest" jokes
deadly dull.
>And not long after, Krusty does his "Mad About Shoe" sketch, and
>gets pelted again. He then says "You're not gonna like our 'NYPD
>Shoe' sketch." Okay, great. That's subtle and funny. End the
>scene there. But noooo. Krusty then says "It's pretty much the
>same thing."
See 9F12, "The Big Ear Family". "This sketch goes on for 12 more minutes".
SNL disease. Better execution there, although Al Jean and Mike Reiss know
better.
>5) Too many pop culture references
>Whoever posted a message that included this complaint hit the nail on
>the head. It IS like watching "Animaniacs" nowadays. And truly classic
>comedy like "Monty Python" does avoid making such inevitably dated jokes.
>So while "Reservoir Cats" was good, I could have done without Charles
>Bronson on "Andy Griffith" (too absurd a situation to be hilarious-- still funny,
>though).
Television shows are very volatile; what's a hit this year might be gone
the next. Movies such as the Star Wars trilogy, and the Tarantino joke are
fair game, but the more obscure jokes should be left to the background for
nerds like us to pick out (such as the "I'll Do Anything-- 17th Smash
Year!" marquee in "Lisa's Wedding".
>6) Changing characters' histories and natures
>A la "Hurricane Neddy." This has been discussed many times. I often think
>we fans take the characters more seriously than the show's ever-changing
>stable of writers.
Any writer must be made to learn the internal consistency, or at least have
it corrected during team writing sessions. There's no excuse for glaring
continuity errors like those in "When Maggie Makes Three".
>So, there you have it. Having said all that, though, I still have to say that "The
>Simpsons" remains a good, if not great show. It's well worth watching just
>for those few big laughs I always get.
What I'm looking for is an episode like "Summer of 4'2" or "Lisa's
Wedding", "Lisa's Substitute" or "One Fish, Two Fish...." The problem is
that they are rarer these days. But I'm still here, week after week, and
the past couple weeks' episodes (except for The Twisted World of Marge
Simpson) have been satisfying, if not of the calibre of those classics.
Jeff
Anthony Torres <anth...@sprynet.com> wrote in article
<5dkd8l$8...@juliana.sprynet.com>...
> these things are already familiar from countless recent
> postings, but bear repeating.......
>
> 1) Jokes that go on too long
>
> speaking.... very.... slowly.... to stop further avalanches.
>
I guess it's depends on your sense of humour. I for one could'nt stop
laughing at slow.....talking......scene. I laugh out lould at the 'rake
scene' in a much earlier episode and still do everytime I see it. There's
room for all sorts of humor, but I don't think this is a cause of the
sub-par episodes.
> 2) Jokes that are EXPLAINED to me
>
> This really got me angry during "Simpsoncali..." Two examples:
> First, when "Krusty Komedy Klassic" spelled "KKK" on the set.
> The writers could have just left it there and that would have been
> a small subtle joke, but Krusty noticed it in a protracted way, and
> gee, it turns out he's at the Apollo Theater and he gets pelted with
> garbage. I dunno. It was a bit forced for my taste.
>
This is very true. The 'KKK' would of been much more funnier if it was
left without Krusty noticing it. This is a big reason of the decline. No
joke is funny if you have to explain it, and this is something that I did
notice through out the season.
> 3) Too many songs
>
Unless the songs are good. A small part of Homer singing in Sherry Bobbins
(sp?) was especially funny.
> 4) Shoehorning recurring characters into shows
>
> Hey, I love Ned, Principal Skinner, Apu, Moleman, et al, but recent
> episodes seem to try to give as many of them lines as humanly possible.
Agreed, but not really a reason for the 'decline'. If there funny, there
funny. I can't remember of any scene right now...maybe cause it was'nt
funny? I dunno.
> 5) Too many pop culture references
>
> Whoever posted a message that included this complaint hit the nail on
> the head. It IS like watching "Animaniacs" nowadays. And truly classic
> comedy like "Monty Python" does avoid making such inevitably dated jokes.
This is a good way of putting it, and is totally true. I hope there is
change on this. Earlier seasons did seem much more 'sophistocated'.
>
Jesse Fuchs
>
> >1) Jokes that go on too long
>
> We had the infamous rake scene in 8F24.....
Yeah, but that sort of seemed to be the point of the rake scene, which I
personally thought was hilarious before it got cut down in syndication to a merely
annoying length. The rake scene was over the top, and love it or hate it, it was
certainly unique, which can't be said of the more recent examples.
>
> >2) Jokes that are EXPLAINED to me
>
> >This really got me angry during "Simpsoncali..." Two examples:
> >First, when "Krusty Komedy Klassic" spelled "KKK" on the set.
> >The writers could have just left it there and that would have been
> >a small subtle joke, but Krusty noticed it in a protracted way, and
> >gee, it turns out he's at the Apollo Theater and he gets pelted with
> >garbage. I dunno. It was a bit forced for my taste.
>
>
> See 9F12, "The Big Ear Family". "This sketch goes on for 12 more minutes".
> SNL disease. Better execution there, although Al Jean and Mike Reiss know
> better.
They cut it short there, which is the key. As Reader's Digest says, "Brevity is...wit."
>
> >5) Too many pop culture references
>
>
> Television shows are very volatile; what's a hit this year might be gone
> the next. Movies such as the Star Wars trilogy, and the Tarantino joke are
> fair game, but the more obscure jokes should be left to the background for
> nerds like us to pick out (such as the "I'll Do Anything-- 17th Smash
> Year!" marquee in "Lisa's Wedding".
Yeah, but the problem is that they didn't _do_ anything with the QT joke -
it was just bringing up cultural references which are supposed to be inherently funny.
In reruns, that joke is going to seem really painfully dated...
Mike Wilk
#1 reason- in your face stupidity
Jeff <rall...@interlog.com> wrote in article
<01bc1765$d9320140$bb5d...@rallycat.interlog.com>...
> Anthony Torres <anth...@sprynet.com> wrote in article
> <5dkd8l$8...@juliana.sprynet.com>...
> > these things are already familiar from countless recent
> > postings, but bear repeating.......
> >
> > 1) Jokes that go on too long
> >
> > Like in "Mountain of Madness", Homer and Mr. Burns
> > speaking.... very.... slowly.... to stop further avalanches.
> >
>
> I guess it's depends on your sense of humour. I for one could'nt stop
> laughing at slow.....talking......scene. I laugh out lould at the 'rake
> scene' in a much earlier episode and still do everytime I see it.
There's
> room for all sorts of humor, but I don't think this is a cause of the
> sub-par episodes.
>
> > 2) Jokes that are EXPLAINED to me
> >
> > This really got me angry during "Simpsoncali..." Two examples:
> > First, when "Krusty Komedy Klassic" spelled "KKK" on the set.
> > The writers could have just left it there and that would have been
> > a small subtle joke, but Krusty noticed it in a protracted way, and
> > gee, it turns out he's at the Apollo Theater and he gets pelted with
> > garbage. I dunno. It was a bit forced for my taste.
> >
>
> This is very true. The 'KKK' would of been much more funnier if it was
> left without Krusty noticing it. This is a big reason of the decline.
No
> joke is funny if you have to explain it, and this is something that I did
> notice through out the season.
>
> > 3) Too many songs
> >
>
> Unless the songs are good. A small part of Homer singing in Sherry
Bobbins
> (sp?) was especially funny.
>
> > 4) Shoehorning recurring characters into shows
> >
> > Hey, I love Ned, Principal Skinner, Apu, Moleman, et al, but recent
> > episodes seem to try to give as many of them lines as humanly possible.
>
> Agreed, but not really a reason for the 'decline'. If there funny, there
> funny. I can't remember of any scene right now...maybe cause it was'nt
> funny? I dunno.
>
> > 5) Too many pop culture references
> >
J.Edquilang
I dont think that the show is going downhill at all!
Stop expecting so much out of it. As long as you have
the intellegence to get most of the subtle jokes and hidden
meanings then the show is still good. Stop expecting, just enjoy.
The Nightfly
west...@olympic.seas.ucla.edu (John Charles Westergaard) wrote:
> Anthony Torres <anth...@sprynet.com> writes:
> >
> >A la "Hurricane Neddy." This has been discussed many times. I often think
> >we fans take the characters more seriously than the show's ever-changing
> >stable of writers.
>
> Well, there's your problem. Physician, heal thyself.
>
> "The Simpsons" is a TV show, but some people treat it like it's
> an alternate universe to be studied and pored over to the last
> minute detail. WHen these minute details sometimes contradict
> each other, these people whine to no end. THe fact that the writers
> and creators of the show care less than you do about "continuity"
> should tell you that YOU care too much about it, not that they
> need to be more careful.
You need to read what Anthony said more carefully. He said the writers
don't take the CHARACTERS seriously, not that they don't take the "minute
details" seriously. Characters are not a minute detail.
Or then again, on the modern Simpsons, maybe they are. Which is kind of the
point, eh?
"I dreamt of blood upon the lake, of eyes that spoke of sin.
The lake was smooth and deep and black, as was scented skin."
-- Gabriel Knight
Anthony Torres
> "J.Edquilang" <edqu...@mail.sdsu> writes:
> I dont think that the show is going downhill at all!
> Stop expecting so much out of it. As long as you have
> the intellegence to get most of the subtle jokes and hidden
> meanings then the show is still good.
I wish there WERE as many subtle jokes and hidden meanings.
That's one reason why I think the show is going downhill. And
by the way, when I say "downhill", I mean at a slight angle. The
show is in no danger of sucking yet. "I & S & P", "Springfield Files"
and "El Viaje" prove the show can still be fantastic.
> Stop expecting, just enjoy.
>
>>>>
But I DO enjoy, I do. I wouldn't call my original post a big long
complaint. It was more like criticism in the true sense of the
word. I was just being a critic. I still think that even a mediocre
"Simpsons" episode (which half this season's episodes have
been) is some of the best new comedy on TV. (Along with
"Newsradio", "Dr. Katz" and "The Larry Sanders Show", IMHO.)
Anthony
Anthony Gandia
Robert Tichacek wrote:
>
> > You need to read what Anthony said more carefully. He said the writers don't take the CHARACTERS seriously, not that they don't take the "minute details" seriously. Characters are not a minute detail.
> > Or then again, on the modern Simpsons, maybe they are. Which is kind of the point, eh?
>
> Actually, I think that you're the one not taking the characters
> seriously, in that you want them to remain as unchanging figures, never developing, and that you seem to think that they are somehow _yours_ as opposed to having a dramatic "life" of their own.....If you can write an "authentic" Flanders et. al., then apply to Fox for a job. The writers are the only people with any right to say what the characters actually are - they are the ones doing the work.
> Robert T.
I agree with Robert T. I find it fascinating that after eight seasons,
the show still continues to find a way to make me laugh:even though the
characters don't age and don't change clothes. That is a tough thing to
do.
I think some things mentioned in Anthony's original post take a lot of
things for granted about this show. When you read a positive review of
The Simpsons in the media, you are almost guaranteed to find a mention
of how well the show skewers pop culture, especially considering that
The Simpsons have become a strong faction of that itself, which is why
it skewered itself in the Poochie episode.
I feel the criticism of the musical numbers was off the mark. In the
Simpsonscali... episode, that was the point. In musicals, the actors
are constantly belting out songs about any little thing that happens.
In the episode, Barney and Moe are singing about beer! (My favorite
all-time tune is Apu's and the Simpson's "Who Needs the Quik-E Mart?")
As for saying that the show is being FOXified, I don't think that is
necessarily a bad thing: there are bad shows all over the dial. (I
don't think I watch anything on ABC or CBS). Tonight's episode
Homerphobia had elements in it that you probably would not have seen on
a typical sitcom. (Steelworkers dancing to C&C Music Factory!)
So I think we should sit back and enjoy the ride, because as long as the
show doesn't center on Marge (those have been pretty bad lately, I
admit) we are bound to have a good time.