In Defense of Season Eight
Trinschler
Well, I've finally decided to mention something that has bothering me about
this newsgroup for awhile: the bashing of Season Eight. I know this post will
probably be unpopular, but I've kept it bottled up too long. So, knowing that
I'm probably about to be flamed all to hell, I hereby present my new post,
entitled:
WHY SEASON EIGHT DIDN'T SUCK
When I first got on-line a few months ago, one of the first things I did was to
find as much cool stuff about my favorite TV program. I was looking for all
that amusing and useless trivia afout OFF that I knew would be lurking up here.
I also was interested in my fellow fans' ideas and opinions about the various
episodes. Did they like the same ones I did and vice versa? For the most
part, their ideas were similar, but, much to my horror, I discovered that some
of my favorite recent episodes were terribly maligned by the others. And why?
For the msot part, simply because they were NEW....
The complaints about these shows were similar to these:
"It's not EXACTLY the same as it was..."
"Some of the characters (gasp!) have actually changed and developed like real
humans do..."
"Things are different now, and change is bad..."
"Every single show isn't completely and totally about the five members of OFF,
and they actually develop some of the minor characters..."
Yet, Season Eight seems to me not to be as bad as these doomsayers seemed to
say. "Oh really?" I can hear all you skeptics out there say. "Obviously you
don't see that Season Eight has been popularly condemned, and whatever is
popular must be correct." So I guess I'll have to expalin this unpopular
stance, then.
First of all, what makes "The Simpsons" great is the combination of
intellegnece, humor, interesting characters, and good plots. If an episode has
those things in abundance, it is IMHO a successful episode. Those lacking some
of the aforementioned are less successful, while only those that lack them
completely are failures. (There has been only one true failure in the entire
series, "The Principal and the Pauper"; every other episode has at least some
minor redeeming quality.) Looking over the episode guide, and tabulating which
I thought were above quality, I've noticed that Season Eight has a similar
number of "favorite episodes" as any of the preceding seasons, including those
in an extraordinary mid-season from "Homer's Phobia" to "The Canine Mutiny"
inclusive. It had four excellent episodes ("Lisa's Date With Destiny",
"Homer's Phobia","My Sister, My Sitter", and "The Brother from Another Series"
(although my opinion for the latter is biased because I enjoy "Frasier" so
much)) which I would grade A or A+. It had *fourteen* episodes which would be
graded B- to A-. Only seven episides from last season would rate a grade of C
or lower from me.
So let's debunk some mythis about season eight:
There were to many Homer-centered episides.
Wrong. Only nine episodes (3G05 and 4F03, 05, 07, 10, 11, 12, 15 , and 19) out
of the twenty-three could be considered Homer-centered, and even some of these
focused on others almost as much as Homer. The other fourteen were focused on
other characters or OFF as a whole.
Too many episides focused on others besides OFF, and that's bad.
Why? One of the greatest things about the Simpsons is the incredible
supporting cast. In most shows, there are only a few characters outside the
regulars that are ever developed; "The Simpsons" has dozens of them! And all
of them are wonderful, interesting, and highly humorous. While many may be
stereotypes, they are gentle, loveable stereotypes, and they are steroetypical
in ways delightfully different from the norm. Mayor Quimby may be
stereotypically corrupt and womanizing, but unlike other stereotypes, he
doesn't hide it, and the others don't chastise him for it. Mr. Burns is an
evil, conniving boss, yet somehow he is made loveable in his wickedness. I
enjoy it when the writers decide to delve into the psyches of these characters,
and when they do so, they make Springfield a richer place (provided they do so
with good and prudent taste, unlike "The Principal...")
The characters weren't exactly the same as they were in earlier years, and
that, too, is bad.
What's wrong with character development? Shakespeare did it. Chaucer did it.
Even Homer did so (er, the Greek Homer). In any literary endeavor, characters
change and grow as plots develop. Sometimes this growth is backwards, but it
is still change nonetheless. Some say that Lisa has become too militant or
Homer too stupid, believing that the charcters seen earlier in the series could
never act in such a manner. Yet, if characters are meant to be human, they
must be seen to change, for no human remains static (at least none that are
interesting). Who doesn't know a person, even a highly intellegent person,
who, after causing a scene, found out that he/she enjoyed the attention, and
began to make trouble simply for the attention? That IMHO is what has happened
to Lisa. Is it contrary to her character? Not if she's human.
Homer was completely stupid and uncaring in Season Eight.
Homer at his stupidest? Watch "Homer vs. the Eighteenth Amandment", "I&S&P"
and others to dispell that myth ("Homer's Enemy" was an unfortuante
abberation)
Any story that has a wacky and/or strange plot can't be good.
Ever read "The Tempest?" How about "A Midsummer's Night Dream"?
How dare the writers make fun of us in "Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie"!!!
Since we are being laughed at, its bad.
Lighten up. Learn to laugh at yourself and then watch that episode again.
You'll discover that it's a hoot.
In many episodes, the writers were merely rehashing old sit-com plots. How
awful!!!
When old plots are reused, but not changed, that's bad. When old plots are
reused and infused with genius, that's good. Besides "The Tempest", everyone
of Shakspesare's plays is adapted from an older plot. What sets him, and "The
Simpsons", apart from the dross of other re-users is the genius that is put
into the old ideas, changing them and putting them on a higher level than the
rest. Almost all TV comedies reuse the same plots over and over again. But
only "The Simpsons" and "Frasier" dare to do so with intellegence. It is that
intellegence, not dumbing down to the lowest level, which can turn an old plot
into a brilliant new one.
Season Eight was not the cesspool that everyone seems to want to make it out to
be. It was as wonderful, entertaining, and hilarious as any of the previous
seven. How can one hate a season that included our OFF driving even a Mary
Poppns-esque nanny to dispair, the scenes where Bart is searching for a
reprosessed SLH ("I 'ate your dog!!"), Lisa trying to change Nelson, and
Lisa's trials as Bart's babysitter? What about all those wonderful scenes in
"The Springfield Files"? ("It brings love, break its legs!", "..and THAT is how
much college will cost for Maggie.") There were so many great one-liners too:
"It's bad for their society if they don't kill the intruder." "I'll take
anything that doesn't taste like orange drink fermented under a heater." "We
work hard, we play hard" "We're going to be in a pie!" And of course, the
infamous Season Nine prediction at the end of "Simpsons Spinoff Showcase"...
There was so much good in Season Eight that it surely deserves reconsidering by
all you bashers out there. Give it another look with an open mind, and maybe
you'll be pleasantly suprised.
Sorrowfully waiting for the flames from people who can't stand someone who
speaks his mind on an unpopular subject,
Tom Rinschler
"Nonsense! They couldn't hit an elephant at that dist--"
---last words of Major General John Sedgwick, at the Battle of Spotsylvania,
May 9, 1864.
Bill Baldwin
Trinschler wrote in defense of Season 8:
> I'm probably about to be flamed all to hell, I hereby present my new
post,
> entitled:
I doubt it. Your view is probably in the majority. Those who disliked
Season 8 have been the subject of frequent flames in the past. In recent
weeks though, the flamers (disheartened by a dismal Season 9?) have been
letting us have our say. Perhaps you've mistaken that for the status quo.
But those who disliked Season 8 don't tend to flame those who do. (They
tend to be too articulate and sensible to do that... wait, I didn't say
that... put the flame-thrower down.) Rather, they flame the show itself.
For people whose identity is bound up in the love of The Simpsons,
including Season 8, this has proven hard to take.
> WHY SEASON EIGHT DIDN'T SUCK
>
> but, much to my horror, I discovered that some
> of my favorite recent episodes were terribly maligned by the others. And
why?
> For the msot part, simply because they were NEW....
This doesn't seem a fair characterization. I don't recall anyone saying, "I
didn't like that. It was new."
> The complaints about these shows were similar to these:
>
> "It's not EXACTLY the same as it was..."
> "Some of the characters (gasp!) have actually changed and developed like
real
> humans do..."
> "Things are different now, and change is bad..."
> "Every single show isn't completely and totally about the five members of
OFF,
> and they actually develop some of the minor characters..."
Again, I don't think this is a fair characterization. What we've been
trying to articulate is a disappointment about a change in style -- style
of humor, style of storytelling, style of characterization -- from good to
bad. E.g. Season 8's style of humor seemed pushy and obvious. Remember
Mulder showing his ID badge in The Springfield Files? He showed it twice.
Once it was freeze frame fun: you had to pause the tape to see it was a
beefcake picture of him in speedos. The second time the camera lingered on
it until even the real time viewers understood, sounded out all the hard
words, nodded and said, "OK, you can turn the page now." How long was that?
Long enough for the old style to tell two more jokes and throw in another
sight gag.
What bugged me was the way they started rubbing our faces in the humor. It
wasn't witty anymore. It wasn't subtle; it didn't give me the enjoyment of
figuring out the jokes. It figured them out for me and explained them to
me, like a washed-up comic who doesn't know where the punchline is.
> First of all, what makes "The Simpsons" great is the combination of
> intellegnece, humor, interesting characters, and good plots.
Not sure about "intellegnece" but you're right about the others. Plus, the
show is intelligent. This is my complaint. Season 8 was dumbed down.
> If an episode has
> those things in abundance, it is IMHO a successful episode.
OK we agree on the words, but not on their definition. IMO, Season 8
*didn't* have these things.
> Too many episides focused on others besides OFF, and that's bad.
> Why?
Because it left OFF with nothing to do. I don't mind shows that deal with
other characters and even "focus" on them. But the show must focus on them
from the perspective of The Simpsons. Consider the episode where Apu loses
his job at the Kwik-E Mart. Would that show have been more funny if Apu
*hadn't* moved in with the Simpsons? What if instead we'd followed him home
to his apartment/house/whatever he had that year and OFF was reduced to bit
parts involving negligible screen time? I wouldn't have liked it myself. I
don't know Apu enough to watch a whole show about him unless I can watch
him through the lens of a family I *do* know and love. This is what made
that episode successful and The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons a failure
(IMO) even though both involved Apu moving into the Simpsons abode.
> One of the greatest things about the Simpsons is the incredible
> supporting cast. In most shows, there are only a few characters outside
the
> regulars that are ever developed; "The Simpsons" has dozens of them! And
all
> of them are wonderful, interesting, and highly humorous. While many may
be
> stereotypes, they are gentle, loveable stereotypes, and they are
steroetypical
> in ways delightfully different from the norm.
Exactly. They are stereotypes. Good stereotypes. But if we're to enjoy
them, stereotypes need to be surrounded by 3-dimensional characters (not as
in Homer 3-D [Although some more shows in that animation style would be
cool] but as in with more than one character point). This is what I feel
Season 8 lacked (and Season 9 lacks), either by moving 2-dimensional
characters to center stage or by stripping central characters of at least
one dimension.
> What's wrong with character development?
It's not character *development* so much as character assassination. Lisa
turns into a stereotype of herself -- a PC thug and nothing else. Homer
turns into a stereotype of himself -- a buffoon and nothing else.
> Shakespeare did it. Chaucer did it.
> Even Homer did so (er, the Greek Homer).
Yeah, I like them too. But what if a different writer came in and tried to
write The Tempest, Part II? Would you be excited to see all your favorite
characters -- Prospero, Caliban, Miranda -- back in action again? Or would
you, like Milhouse, say, "I fear to watch but cannot look away"? That's the
way The Simpsons has been for me the past two years. I have finally decided
to look away. I won't be taping the show this Sunday. I won't be watching
it either.
> In any literary endeavor, characters
> change and grow as plots develop. Sometimes this growth is backwards,
but it
> is still change nonetheless. Some say that Lisa has become too militant
or
> Homer too stupid, believing that the charcters seen earlier in the series
could
> never act in such a manner. Yet, if characters are meant to be human,
they
> must be seen to change, for no human remains static (at least none that
are
> interesting).
But in this case, the writers have taken (at least) two sympathetic
characters and caused them to change in ways that makes it much more
difficult to sympathize with them. It takes greater literary genius than
the collective Simpsons writers possess to pull off what you're suggesting
and still make compelling art or even entertainment.
> Who doesn't know a person, even a highly intellegent person,
> who, after causing a scene, found out that he/she enjoyed the attention,
and
> began to make trouble simply for the attention? That IMHO is what has
happened
> to Lisa. Is it contrary to her character? Not if she's human.
Are you referring to Lisa in Bart Star? I liked that and thought it worked.
But it worked because I know Lisa better than to think that one note *is*
her character. Ondre Lombard, who didn't like it, feared that this one note
was *becoming* her character and so he wasn't in a mood to laugh. I
understand his point. (Ondre, if I've misrepresented you, jump right in and
clobber me.)
> How dare the writers make fun of us in "Itchy and Scratchy and
Poochie"!!!
> Since we are being laughed at, its bad.
> Lighten up. Learn to laugh at yourself and then watch that episode
again.
> You'll discover that it's a hoot.
I love laughing at myself. (If you doubt that, consider that I am a
Republican, a conservative Christian, and a big fan of the show.) What I
hated about I&S&P is that it completely failed to make me do so. It was the
attempted humor of a Junior Higher who has concluded that all sarcasm is
funny.
> In many episodes, the writers were merely rehashing old sit-com plots.
How
> awful!!!
> When old plots are reused, but not changed, that's bad. When old plots
are
> reused and infused with genius, that's good.
Agreed. Mozart's Marriage of Figaro has been described as "the mother of
all Three's Company plots." But in the case of Seasons 8 and 9, I haven't
seen any genius brought to the equation
> Almost all TV comedies reuse the same plots over and over again. But
> only "The Simpsons" and "Frasier" dare to do so with intellegence.
And NewsRadio, but I digress.
> It is that
> intellegence, not dumbing down to the lowest level, which can turn an old
plot
> into a brilliant new one.
Darn it, Tom! My complaint is that The Simpsons *has* been dumbed down.
Bring back the intelligence!
> There was so much good in Season Eight that it surely deserves
reconsidering by
> all you bashers out there. Give it another look with an open mind, and
maybe
> you'll be pleasantly suprised.
Maybe. But the last time I did that I was cruelly disappointed. The
episodes haven't worked for me on repeat viewings yet.
> Sorrowfully waiting for the flames from people who can't stand someone
who
> speaks his mind on an unpopular subject,
But then you have to be able to stand our speaking our minds differently,
don't you? And you have to be able to understand our position rather than
caricature it.
Still, Tom, yours was an awfully good post. If I've responded at length,
it's out of the pleasure of having something to respond to. Something more
intelligent than, "It's a cartoon!!!!! You morons!" or "Then why don't you
just stop watching and not ruin it for the rest of us?" So please do post
again. I hope you don't consider what I've written a flame so much as a
thoughtful, spirited exchange.
--
Bill Baldwin
Trinschler
Bill Baldwin wrote about my post:
>That's the
>way The Simpsons has been for me the past two years. I have finally decided
>to look away. I won't be taping the show this Sunday. I won't be watching
>it either.
Well, it's a repeat anyway.
>But then you have to be able to stand our speaking our minds differently,
>don't you? And you have to be able to understand our position rather than
>caricature it.
Sorry if it seemed to be caricature. I certainly do understand and respect
your opinion, but sometimes to make a point, you have to use the extreme of the
opposing viewpoint to make the contrast better. It wasn't meant to say that
everyone who holds a different viewpoint were so obnoxious and whiny, just that
there are *some* that hold *some* of those extreme views. I was simply getting
out several months of anger in one post, so it was probably a bit more harsh
and sarcastic than it should have been. I apologize again to anyone that was
offended by my putting down of those with a differing opinion.
Thanks for the good rebuttal, Ben. I feared that when I returned to this
newsgroup, I would be confronted with endless sophomoric posts (I've seen it
happen). I glad discussions up here can be held in such an intellegent and
civilized manner.
Glad that we've amicably agreed to disagree,.
Odelayan64
I think season 8 was bashed so often because it was not nearly at the high
quality of previous seasons, esp. 4-7. The writing was weaker, the gags were
fewer and futher in between. It was better than most t.v. shows on, but not
classic simpsons. Season 9 is turning out better, but still not nearly as good
as previous seasons.
Dale G. Abersold
trins...@aol.com (Trinschler) writes:
> I also was interested in my fellow fans' ideas and opinions about the various
> episodes. Did they like the same ones I did and vice versa? For the most
> part, their ideas were similar, but, much to my horror, I discovered that some
> of my favorite recent episodes were terribly maligned by the others. And
> why? For the msot part, simply because they were NEW....
> The complaints about these shows were similar to these:
> "It's not EXACTLY the same as it was..."
> "Some of the characters (gasp!) have actually changed and developed like real
> humans do..."
> "Things are different now, and change is bad..."
> "Every single show isn't completely and totally about the five members of OFF,
> and they actually develop some of the minor characters..."
You can't expect to have a serious debate when you deride others' opinions by
restating them in a sarcastic fashion. Play fair.
> Yet, Season Eight seems to me not to be as bad as these doomsayers seemed to
> say. "Oh really?" I can hear all you skeptics out there say. "Obviously you
> don't see that Season Eight has been popularly condemned, and whatever is
> popular must be correct." So I guess I'll have to expalin this unpopular
> stance, then.
"Get off the cross. Somebody else needs the wood."
> First of all, what makes "The Simpsons" great is the combination of
> intellegnece, humor, interesting characters, and good plots. If an episode has
> those things in abundance, it is IMHO a successful episode.
Agreed.
> Those lacking some
> of the aforementioned are less successful, while only those that lack them
> completely are failures. (There has been only one true failure in the entire
> series, "The Principal and the Pauper"; every other episode has at least some
> minor redeeming quality.)
Again, agreed, although "Another Simpsons Clip Show" is also a failure, IMO.
> So let's debunk some mythis about season eight:
>
> There were to many Homer-centered episides.
> Wrong. Only nine episodes (3G05 and 4F03, 05, 07, 10, 11, 12, 15 , and 19) out
> of the twenty-three could be considered Homer-centered, and even some of these
> focused on others almost as much as Homer. The other fourteen were focused on
> other characters or OFF as a whole.
In my book, there were 11 and 1/3 Homercentric episodes: 3F23, 3F24, 3G01,
"Citizen Kang" in 4F02, 4F03, 4F04, 4F05, 4F10, 4F11, 4F12, 4F15, 4F19.
Happily, the writing staff seems to have steered away from that. As Ondre
Lombard has previously noted, not a single one of the 5F episodes has Homer's
name in the title.
> Too many episides focused on others besides OFF, and that's bad.
> Why? One of the greatest things about the Simpsons is the incredible
> supporting cast. In most shows, there are only a few characters outside the
> regulars that are ever developed; "The Simpsons" has dozens of them! And all
> of them are wonderful, interesting, and highly humorous.
Your points about the quirks of the townspeople are well-taken, but the point
is that they are supporting characters. The show is called "The Simpsons" and
not "The Springfieldians", after all. Those shows about supporting characters
are best when they are shown in relation to the Simpson family. Another
more disturbing development is when a show is written around a brand-new
character (often a Special Guest Voice): examples of this include Larry in
4F05, Belle in 4F06, Shary Bobbins in 3G03, Frank Grimes in 4F19, and so on.
> The characters weren't exactly the same as they were in earlier years, and
> that, too, is bad.
> What's wrong with character development? Shakespeare did it. Chaucer did it.
> Even Homer did so (er, the Greek Homer). In any literary endeavor, characters
> change and grow as plots develop. Sometimes this growth is backwards, but it
> is still change nonetheless. Some say that Lisa has become too militant or
> Homer too stupid, believing that the charcters seen earlier in the series could
> never act in such a manner. Yet, if characters are meant to be human, they
> must be seen to change, for no human remains static (at least none that are
> interesting). Who doesn't know a person, even a highly intellegent person,
> who, after causing a scene, found out that he/she enjoyed the attention, and
> began to make trouble simply for the attention? That IMHO is what has happened
> to Lisa. Is it contrary to her character? Not if she's human.
The problem isn't character development per se, but character misrepresentation
brought on by laziness from the writers. But then, I am not so scrupulous
about this point as some of my fellow a.t.s netizens, so I shall leave it to
them to respond here.
> Homer was completely stupid and uncaring in Season Eight.
> Homer at his stupidest? Watch "Homer vs. the Eighteenth Amandment", "I&S&P"
> and others to dispell that myth ("Homer's Enemy" was an unfortuante
> abberation)
I agree with you here: Homer has been far stupider before. (Broken record
alert) "Homer Goes to College" for instance. But let it pass, let it pass.
> Any story that has a wacky and/or strange plot can't be good.
> Ever read "The Tempest?" How about "A Midsummer's Night Dream"?
The thing is...The Tempest and A Midsummer Night's Dream are stand-alone
creations. Strange goings-on in The Tempest do not have anything to do with,
say, the more realistic action of Henry V. On the other hand, The Simpsons
started off as a very _real_ series. Does anyone remember the Rolling Stone
article about the Series, "The Only Real Family on Television"? The problem
with these "wacky" episodes is that they leave this original vision of the
series behind.
> In many episodes, the writers were merely rehashing old sit-com plots. How
> awful!!!
> When old plots are reused, but not changed, that's bad. When old plots are
> reused and infused with genius, that's good. Besides "The Tempest", everyone
> of Shakspesare's plays is adapted from an older plot. What sets him, and "The
> Simpsons", apart from the dross of other re-users is the genius that is put
> into the old ideas, changing them and putting them on a higher level than the
> rest. Almost all TV comedies reuse the same plots over and over again. But
> only "The Simpsons" and "Frasier" dare to do so with intellegence. It is that
> intellegence, not dumbing down to the lowest level, which can turn an old plot
> into a brilliant new one.
I agree here that it is refreshing to see them turn sitcom conventions on their
head from time to time. On the other hand, sometimes The Simpsons remains
very conventional indeed. "The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons", anybody? How
about "A Milhouse Divided" (last season's worst episode, IMO).
> Season Eight was not the cesspool that everyone seems to want to make it out
> to be.
I agree with you. I liked Season Eight, and considered it the best overall
season since Season Four.
On the other hand, you seem to have the idea that people criticize it because
it is fashionable to do so. No, trust me, these are the honest opinions
of the show by people who are very passionate about it. Take our fearless
FAQ-keeper for instance: I feel the pain in his reviews each time he writes
a negative one. I know that he hopes for every episode to be a good one, but
they fail to meet the high standards he holds for the series. He does not rip
on the series gratuitously: if he truly hated the show he certainly would not
spend untold hours updating the FAQ for us.
> Sorrowfully waiting for the flames from people who can't stand someone who
> speaks his mind on an unpopular subject,
It's a gross generalization to say that season 8 is derided by everyone on
this newsgroup. Both Benjamin J. Robinson and myself gave favorable reviews
to the season in general when it wrapped up in May. Check DejaNews.
_____________________________________________________________
| Dale G. Abersold-...@cc.usu.edu |
| S1.2 LIS+++! MIL++@ CBG* f++ n++ $+++ 7F19 M28 |
| Dale's New and Constantly Incomplete Home Page |
| http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Academy/7309 |
-------------------------------------------------------------
Now Season Six...that one REALLLY sucked....
Bill Baldwin
Trinschler wrote:
> Bill Baldwin wrote about my post:
>
> >way The Simpsons has been for me the past two years. I have finally
decided
> >to look away. I won't be taping the show this Sunday. I won't be
watching
> >it either.
>
Crud. So much for my stand for righteousness.
> Sorry if it seemed to be caricature. I certainly do understand and
respect
> your opinion, but sometimes to make a point, you have to use the extreme
of the
> opposing viewpoint to make the contrast better. It wasn't meant to say
that
> everyone who holds a different viewpoint were so obnoxious and whiny,
just that
> there are *some* that hold *some* of those extreme views. I was simply
getting
> out several months of anger in one post, so it was probably a bit more
harsh
> and sarcastic than it should have been. I apologize again to anyone that
was
> offended by my putting down of those with a differing opinion.
Reasonable enough. I wasn't offended at all. Caricatures, as you note, have
a useful function. In essence, they say, "This is what the other side
sounds like to me when they start to bug me." And that's useful to know,
but there's no real way to interact with it. Your post was refreshing
because you didn't leave it at that level.
--
Bill Baldwin
Ondre Lombard
On 14 Dec 1997, Dale G. Abersold wrote:
> > So let's debunk some mythis about season eight:
> >
> > There were to many Homer-centered episides.
> > Wrong. Only nine episodes (3G05 and 4F03, 05, 07, 10, 11, 12, 15 , and 19) out
> > of the twenty-three could be considered Homer-centered, and even some of these
> > focused on others almost as much as Homer. The other fourteen were focused on
> > other characters or OFF as a whole.
>
> In my book, there were 11 and 1/3 Homercentric episodes: 3F23, 3F24, 3G01,
> "Citizen Kang" in 4F02, 4F03, 4F04, 4F05, 4F10, 4F11, 4F12, 4F15, 4F19.
> Happily, the writing staff seems to have steered away from that. As Ondre
> Lombard has previously noted, not a single one of the 5F episodes has Homer's
> name in the title.
Season Eight also had a tendancy to make Homer play an important part
in an episode that was supposed to be about someone else. For example, he is
the star of the subplots in 4F01 and 4F18. Also, he takes center stage in
4F08 when Marge's pretzel business starts failing. And then he is the key
player when Ned has his nervous breakdown in 4F07. I used to observe this
type of syndrome in the show "Family Matters," which would involve Urkel in
every single storyline, and continues to do so. Homer was exercised quite a
lot. And anyone notice Bart hardly did anything in season 8?
And, I will point out exactly how much the rest of the family was
handled in comparison to Homer. 4F06 and 4F16 were the only Bart-centered
episodes. Lisa was featured in 4F01, 4F13, 4F17 and 4F21, and that was it.
Marge only had two episodes: 4F08 and 4F18. Meanwhile, everything else was
either about a supporting character or supporting characters and Homer.
> > Too many episides focused on others besides OFF, and that's bad.
> > Why? One of the greatest things about the Simpsons is the incredible
> > supporting cast. In most shows, there are only a few characters outside the
> > regulars that are ever developed; "The Simpsons" has dozens of them! And all
> > of them are wonderful, interesting, and highly humorous.
>
> Your points about the quirks of the townspeople are well-taken, but the point
> is that they are supporting characters. The show is called "The Simpsons" and
> not "The Springfieldians", after all. Those shows about supporting characters
> are best when they are shown in relation to the Simpson family. Another
> more disturbing development is when a show is written around a brand-new
> character (often a Special Guest Voice): examples of this include Larry in
> 4F05, Belle in 4F06, Shary Bobbins in 3G03, Frank Grimes in 4F19, and so on.
Funny how only one of those characters you named was voiced by a
special guest actor. :) Seriously, though, I'm in agreement there. The
earlier episodes had quite a lot of episodes with supporting actors playing a
bigger role, and they were quite fine. (e.g., Otto Show, When Flanders
Failed, Flaming Moe's...) However, I enjoyed "Grade School Confidential,"
which did a lot of stuff with Krabappel and Skinner, but still, Bart was
quite involved with the story.
> The problem isn't character development per se, but character misrepresentation
> brought on by laziness from the writers. But then, I am not so scrupulous
> about this point as some of my fellow a.t.s netizens, so I shall leave it to
> them to respond here.
Well, I disagree that it's merely an instance of character development
representative of real life. There are certain things about the characters'
mindsets that was well established over the course of four first years which
if they suddenly change, especially for the sake of a weak gag, will seem out
of place and therefore out-of-character.
When the series began, Homer was more of a frustrated family man
working a somewhat blue collar job, and constantly agitated by his sassy son.
Of course, I won't say that I'd have preferred Homer stay this way, however,
sometime in the second season, the change from him being more angry and
on-edge to being goofier, happier, and a little more dim-witted was gradual,
believable and solid. These days, the father side of Homer has gone out the
window, and the plan is to make Homer a scheming nincompoop. (Prime example:
"Homer's Enemy.")
AFAIK, most Lisa episodes in the earlier years never dealt with the
bothersome, crusading side of Lisa, and a little more with her mind, her
angst, and her hopes. In my opinion, if this supposed "character
development" on Lisa is a good thing, I wonder why it is that on a.t.s.,
lately everyone is lynching her and saying "Kill Lisa off!!" Apparently no
one seems to appreciate this "character development," which, to me, indicates
that Lisa isn't the same character she was before, because before she had
nothing but fans.
The point is, one who has grown to treat the characters as if they're
almost like friends can notice when something is amiss. Not to say that
if one doesn't feel this way, they're stupid, or wrong. I commend a person
for presenting their opinions in a calm and coherent fashion.
> > Homer was completely stupid and uncaring in Season Eight.
> > Homer at his stupidest? Watch "Homer vs. the Eighteenth Amandment", "I&S&P"
> > and others to dispell that myth ("Homer's Enemy" was an unfortuante
> > abberation)
>
> I agree with you here: Homer has been far stupider before. (Broken record
> alert) "Homer Goes to College" for instance. But let it pass, let it pass.
Homer wasn't a complete moron throughout all 25 episodes of season 8.
However, the idiocy factor was up more than in season seven. And Dale, I have
to disagree with you on 1F02. While I agree that Homer was quite unlikeable
in that episodes, I don't think he was all that unusually stupid. Afterall,
we've always known he doesn't know jack about nuclear physics. What cheesed
me was his obnoxious prank-ism, and unwarranted bitterness against everyone.
Homer wasn't eating other people's special lunches, on the verge of
drinking acid, cleaning his ears out with pencils, entering in children's
contests, or sleeping through funerals in 1F02.
> > Any story that has a wacky and/or strange plot can't be good.
> > Ever read "The Tempest?" How about "A Midsummer's Night Dream"?
>
> The thing is...The Tempest and A Midsummer Night's Dream are stand-alone
> creations. Strange goings-on in The Tempest do not have anything to do with,
> say, the more realistic action of Henry V. On the other hand, The Simpsons
> started off as a very _real_ series. Does anyone remember the Rolling Stone
> article about the Series, "The Only Real Family on Television"? The problem
> with these "wacky" episodes is that they leave this original vision of the
> series behind.
Indeed. In fact, half the time, I never hear any critics praising OFF
for it's refreshingly realistic style anymore. In fact, most critics seem to
be eager to see how much crazier and how wittier (i.e., wackier) the parodies
are gonna get. Given the fact that a lot of people on a.t.s. these days seem
to get nothing more than laughs out of the show anymore, I'm pretty convinced
that the characters aren't as complex, and interesting as they used to be.
(Incidentally, am I the only person who was pleased to see Homer's
more human side from an unlikely source--the "Treehouse of Horror"? (This
year's))
> > In many episodes, the writers were merely rehashing old sit-com plots. How
> > awful!!!
> > When old plots are reused, but not changed, that's bad. When old plots are
> > reused and infused with genius, that's good. Besides "The Tempest", everyone
> > of Shakspesare's plays is adapted from an older plot. What sets him, and "The
> > Simpsons", apart from the dross of other re-users is the genius that is put
> > into the old ideas, changing them and putting them on a higher level than the
> > rest. Almost all TV comedies reuse the same plots over and over again. But
> > only "The Simpsons" and "Frasier" dare to do so with intellegence. It is that
> > intellegence, not dumbing down to the lowest level, which can turn an old plot
> > into a brilliant new one.
>
> I agree here that it is refreshing to see them turn sitcom conventions on their
> head from time to time. On the other hand, sometimes The Simpsons remains
> very conventional indeed. "The Two Mrs. Nahasapeemapetilons", anybody? How
> about "A Milhouse Divided" (last season's worst episode, IMO).
AFAIK, when The Simpsons started out, it was quite controversial. For
one thing, no other son on television was cussing and speaking blatently
disrespectful to elders. Not to mention what dishcloth mother do you know on
television would consider sleeping with a suave ladykiller and being
unfaithful to her husband? It's stories like these, (Moaning Lisa too) which
caught everyone's eyes, and convinced the producers that they were making
something no one has ever seen before. In fact, stories like Bart the General
literally satirize the hell out of conventional sitcom plots by doing things
like twisting the story into something completely unexpected, and loaded with
literary and pop culture references. (What other conventional sitcom would
have a bully victim organize a militia in a spoof of "Platoon"?)
The point is, not until recently have I seen The Simpsons really act
like other sitcoms, or other, zanier cartoon shows.
> > Season Eight was not the cesspool that everyone seems to want to make it out
> > to be.
>
> I agree with you. I liked Season Eight, and considered it the best overall
> season since Season Four.
I'll have to disagree. Season Seven was the best since Season Four,
and Season Nine's got a long way to go to change that.
> On the other hand, you seem to have the idea that people criticize it because
> it is fashionable to do so. No, trust me, these are the honest opinions
> of the show by people who are very passionate about it. Take our fearless
> FAQ-keeper for instance: I feel the pain in his reviews each time he writes
> a negative one. I know that he hopes for every episode to be a good one, but
> they fail to meet the high standards he holds for the series. He does not rip
> on the series gratuitously: if he truly hated the show he certainly would not
> spend untold hours updating the FAQ for us.
>
Thank you for your kind defense, Dale.. It _does_ indeed pain me to
write negative reviews because I've been FAQ maintainer for a year now, and
ever since I joined a.t.s., I have been hardly pleased with what I've seen.
And it isn't as if I can make myself enjoy something that I don't. (Although
I did get a free Coke from Chadderack for writing a good review for "Lisa's
Sax" ;-) But I didn't get anything for giving "My Sister, My Sitter" an A-)
At any rate, I'd be really happy if I could write a constant string of decent
reviews, but I suppose my standards are too high. Which is too bad for me.
> > Sorrowfully waiting for the flames from people who can't stand someone who
> > speaks his mind on an unpopular subject,
>
> It's a gross generalization to say that season 8 is derided by everyone on
> this newsgroup. Both Benjamin J. Robinson and myself gave favorable reviews
> to the season in general when it wrapped up in May. Check DejaNews.
AFAIK, a.t.s. was quite divided on season eight, just like it was with
seven, and five. (However, I'm quite sure that most of a.t.s. agreed that
season six had serious problems.)
Ondre
Trinschler
Dale G. Abersold wrote:
>You can't expect to have a serious debate when you deride others' opinions by
>restating them in a sarcastic fashion. Play fair.
>
>
Sorry about that. As I explained before, I was just getting out a few months
of frustration, so I tended to be a bit more obnoxious than usual.
>It's a gross generalization to say that season 8 is derided by everyone on
>this newsgroup. Both Benjamin J. Robinson and myself gave favorable reviews
>to the season in general when it wrapped up in May. Check DejaNews.
I didn't say that everyone hated it, but that there seemed to be (and I may be
wrong about this) a greater opinion against than for. I'm probably just
reacting to the hordes of fly-by-night posters that leave just one spiteful
message and subsequently disappear, more than against the more reasoned reviews
of the regulars.
Trinschler
Ondre Lombard wrote
:>These days, the father side of Homer has gone out the
>window, and the plan is to make Homer a scheming nincompoop. (Prime example:
>"Homer's Enemy.")
>
>
Yep, I already noted that "Homer's Enemy" was seriously flawed in this way.
>and Season Nine's got a long way to go to change that.
Well, if you ignore the monstrosity that was "The Principal and the Pauper"
(not an easy thing to do; I personally try to repress that horrible memory),
Season Nine hasn't been all that bad IMHO. "Lisa's Sax" and "THOH VIII" would
be gems in any season, "Bart Star" and "Lisa the Skeptic" were good, solid
shows, and the others were at worst average (I haven't seen "The Two Mrs. N's"
yet, so I can't speak for it). My hopes aren't dashed yet that this will be a
good season, although to surpass other seasons, it will have several more
excellent episodes to counter the dead weight of "TPATP".
Ondre Lombard
On 15 Dec 1997, Trinschler wrote:
> >and Season Nine's got a long way to go to change that.
>
> Well, if you ignore the monstrosity that was "The Principal and the Pauper"
> (not an easy thing to do; I personally try to repress that horrible memory),
> Season Nine hasn't been all that bad IMHO. "Lisa's Sax" and "THOH VIII" would
> be gems in any season, "Bart Star" and "Lisa the Skeptic" were good, solid
> shows, and the others were at worst average (I haven't seen "The Two Mrs. N's"
> yet, so I can't speak for it). My hopes aren't dashed yet that this will be a
> good season, although to surpass other seasons, it will have several more
> excellent episodes to counter the dead weight of "TPATP".
Well, Lisa's Sax isn't a ninth season episode. It was separately
produced by some older producers in the seventh season. Fox has been sitting
on it for two years so it doesn't really qualify for ninth season quality.
Evidently, I haven't been impressed by much this year outside of
"Lisa the Simpson" and "THOH 8." I'm still reserved on Lisa the Skeptic,
though.
Ondre
JJJAAAZZZ
>"Bart Star" and "Lisa the Skeptic" were good, solid shows
The problem with "Lisa the Skeptic" is that it's so clearly
inferior to the Whacking day ("Lisa the Iconoclast"?)
In Whacking, Lisa is a concerned child and believable 8-year
old who believes in an issue with which most all viewers would
agree. In Skeptic, she's a shrill dwarf that holds her town
in contempt. In Whacking, the townspeople can be reasoned
with ("He's right - give us hell, Quimby!") In Skeptic, the
townspeople are such morons that it's literally not funny.
(Although mentally deficient characters are a staple of
comedy, successful comedy usually requires some level
of identification with the players. While we might not do
exactly what they do, they remind us of foibles of ourselves
or others, if in a SOMEWHAT exaggerated sense. In
Skeptic, the Springfieldians are so dumb that they're
impossible to relate to.)
In Whacking, it takes about 30 seconds to wrap up
the "Lisa vs. the town" motif; in Skeptic, it takes the
whole episode. In Whacking, the guest star is used
as part of the plot; in Skeptic, he's a red herring.
---------------------------------------------------
"The strong must protect the sweet"
Trinschler
jjjaaazzz wrote:
>The problem with "Lisa the Skeptic" is that it's so clearly
>inferior to the Whacking day ("Lisa the Iconoclast"?)
That's true. Whacking Day would receive an "A" grade from me, while "Lisa the
Skeptic" received only a "B" Being inferior to something that is very good is
not necessarily a bad thing.
>In Skeptic, she's a shrill dwarf that holds her town
>in contempt. In Whacking, the townspeople can be reasoned
>with ("He's right - give us hell, Quimby!") In Skeptic, the
>townspeople are such morons that it's literally not funny.
That's the rub. I agree that these were some of the main deficiencies of
"Skeptic", but the problems are related. If the townspeople are acting more
stupidly, of course Lisa's going to be more outspoken than usual.
Unfortunately, the first part is flawed, so the second need never have
happened.
(Oh, and the toewnspeople have acted like they were sill in the scientific
Middle Ages before. Remember Kent Brokman's report showing them about to torch
Skinner for believing the world was round?)
Even after mentioning these weaknesses, I still enjoyed "Lisa the Skeptic" The
plot was interesting mainly because the writer left us guessing until the end
about the exact nature of the statue. ("Is it real?" "If so , how?" "If not,
what is it then?") The ending was quite good, tying up the plot in an
unexpected, yet reasonable, way. Homer wasn't acting like a nitwit, and,
barring her shriller moments, Lisa was acting like an inquisitive, if
incredibly bright, 8 year old; for example, worrying that a possible scientific
site could be destroyed. Plus some of the best ROFL jokes of the season.
Of course, this is only my opinion. Yours and everyone else's are just as
valid as mine. It's just that we disagree on some of them.
Andrew Gill
Dale G. Abersold wrote in message ...
>
>Your points about the quirks of the townspeople are well-taken, but the
point
>is that they are supporting characters. The show is called "The Simpsons"
and
>not "The Springfieldians", after all. Those shows about supporting
characters
>are best when they are shown in relation to the Simpson family. Another
Am I the only person who felt that season 8 was basically one big ad for
Virtual Springfield?
I.E. "If people are going to buy VS, they're going to have to be diehard
fans, so let's make the inside jokes as obvious as we can and incorporate a
lot of secondary characters, so that we can turn a profit."?
---------------------------------------------------------
The official "Write My Signature" contest email address:|
----> fruadman_tru...@juno.com |
The prize? I'll use the best Sig! |
-----------------------------------Temporary Sig Follows:
Alas, I'm probably wrong, and the overtness was unintentional.
Mark Aaron Richey
> Evidently, I haven't been impressed by much this year outside of
> "Lisa the Simpson" and "THOH 8." I'm still reserved on Lisa the Skeptic,
> though.
I'm just curious, Ondre, how'd you get to see [4F24] already?
Anyway, of the shows that have aired, I enjoyed three of them a great
deal ([5F01], [5F02], [5F04]), and gave good review to all except [4F22]
"The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson" (yes, I gave a B- to [4F23]
"The Principal and the Pauper"). Is this season steller? Not really.
But it is a good season so far, even though I have my worries about some
upcoming episodes ([5F08] "Bart Carny" sounds insipid, and it has Jim
Varney as guest star!).
Anyway, about season 8, it wasn't horrible, and it wasn't spectacular.
I give it an overall good review, but much could have been better.
Mark Richey
--
**************************************************************************
Congratulations to the Holiday-Bowl Bound Missouri Tigers! Good luck
against Colorado State!
Happy Holidays from
The Mark Richey Home Page
http://www.missouri.edu/~c670008
**************************************************************************
The Sensation of Loudness
In article <19971216012...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
JJJAAAZZZ <jjja...@aol.com> wrote:
>In Whacking, it takes about 30 seconds to wrap up
>the "Lisa vs. the town" motif; in Skeptic, it takes the
>whole episode. In Whacking, the guest star is used
>as part of the plot; in Skeptic, he's a red herring.
What the above says is precisely why I love Skeptic so much more than Whacking.
What's more believable, a problem that is wrapped up so easily (because of the
dumb citizens so easily moved to Lisa's point of view, a quality that you seemed
to hold against Skeptic) in 30 seconds, or one that does not have a right, or a
wrong, but falls in the middle and is semi-resolved?
As for a guest star, the subtlety you did not pick up is that Stephen J. Gould
is a critic of society's dependence on Science and discrete measurements. The
fact that his results were at first "Inconclusive" and later on, that he never
had bothered to do them, was extremely witty.
And although he is still used as a red herring, this again capsizes our
expectation for a guest star to act like he/she is on Love Boat.
What's better than Gould to come onto the Simpsons and say nothing but
"Inconclusive?"
Ryan Paige
> upcoming episodes ([5F08] "Bart Carny" sounds insipid, and it has Jim
> Varney as guest star!).
You can't go wrong with that "Hey Vern" guy guest starring.
Dale G. Abersold
Mark Aaron Richey <c67...@showme.missouri.edu> writes:
> I'm just curious, Ondre, how'd you get to see [4F24] already?
"It's a secret."
"Shh..shut up!"
Ondre Lombard
On Wed, 17 Dec 1997, Mark Aaron Richey wrote:
> > Evidently, I haven't been impressed by much this year outside of
> > "Lisa the Simpson" and "THOH 8." I'm still reserved on Lisa the Skeptic,
> > though.
>
> I'm just curious, Ondre, how'd you get to see [4F24] already?
Aaaahhh it's a secret. "Shhhhut up."
> Anyway, of the shows that have aired, I enjoyed three of them a great
> deal ([5F01], [5F02], [5F04]), and gave good review to all except [4F22]
> "The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson" (yes, I gave a B- to [4F23]
> "The Principal and the Pauper"). Is this season steller? Not really.
> But it is a good season so far, even though I have my worries about some
> upcoming episodes ([5F08] "Bart Carny" sounds insipid, and it has Jim
> Varney as guest star!).
That does get me. The Simpsons had made fun of Jim Varney and his
string of critically-lambasted feature films on more than one occasion, yet
he's guest starring. Perhaps there's a different consesus on his talents
these days in the Simpsons offices.
> Anyway, about season 8, it wasn't horrible, and it wasn't spectacular.
> I give it an overall good review, but much could have been better.
I'd say season eight is the worst ever, but that's my opinion.
Ondre
JJJAAAZZZ
>>In Whacking, it takes about 30 seconds to wrap up
>>the "Lisa vs. the town" motif; in Skeptic, it takes the
>>whole episode. In Whacking, the guest star is used
>>as part of the plot; in Skeptic, he's a red herring.
>
>What the above says is precisely why I love Skeptic so much >more than
Whacking.
> What's more believable, a problem that is wrapped up so
> easily (because of the dumb citizens so easily moved to
> Lisa's point of view, a quality that you seemed
>to hold against Skeptic) in 30 seconds, or one that
> does not have a right, or a
>wrong, but falls in the middle and is semi-resolved?
The townspeople weren't "dumb" in Whacking Day. They
were convinced when Lisa/Bart informed them that the
day wasn't as traditional as they had believed. That's far
smarter than they were in Lisa The Skeptic, when they
weren't even angry at being completely fooled by the
builders of the mall. I would be surprised if the townspeople
revived Whacking Day at this juncture, if the series stays
true to the episode. Judging from Lisa The Skeptic, I
wouldn't be surprised if the townspeople were again and
again fooled by the same sort of ploy. I suppose you
can expect many sequels to Lisa The Skeptic in that case.
It's almost always preferable to resolve a situation in 30
seconds rather than 30 minutes if no additional information
or entertainment is presented in the extra time. In addition
to the resolution in Whacking Day, there was a whole
'nother plot involving Bart being expelled and being
home-schooled by Marge. In addition, the episode included
great roles for Skinner, Chalmers, Lunchlady Doris, the
school bullies, Willy's tractor, Nixon, Quimby, and the mob
("Hey, he's right! Give us hell, Quimby!") Skeptic had
Lisa, Marge, Homer, and the mob. That's it. No insight or
use of any supporting chartacters as anything other than
idiots.
nos...@mindspring.com
Ondre Lombard wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Dec 1997, Mark Aaron Richey wrote:
> >
> > > Evidently, I haven't been impressed by much this year outside of
> > > "Lisa the Simpson" and "THOH 8." I'm still reserved on Lisa the
> > > Skeptic, though.
> >
> > I'm just curious, Ondre, how'd you get to see [4F24] already?
>
> Aaaahhh it's a secret. "Shhhhut up."
Shhhhuuuuudddupp!! ;-)
Andrew Gill
The Sensation of Loudness wrote in message <67aeqf$a...@elg04.gl.umbc.edu>...
>In article <19971216012...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>
> As for a guest star, the subtlety you did not pick up is that Stephen J.
Gould
>is a critic of society's dependence on Science and discrete measurements.
The
>fact that his results were at first "Inconclusive" and later on, that he
never
>had bothered to do them, was extremely witty.
witty, trite, what's the difference?
> And although he is still used as a red herring, this again capsizes our
>expectation for a guest star to act like he/she is on Love Boat.
> What's better than Gould to come onto the Simpsons and say nothing but
>"Inconclusive?"
Where do we expect a character to act like s/he is on the Love Boat? The
Brady Bunch, The Partridge Family, Love Boat, but NOT The Simpsons.
---------------------------------------------------------
The official "Write My Signature" contest email address:|
----> fruadman_tru...@juno.com |
The prize? I'll use the best Sig! |
-----------------------------------Temporary Sig Follows:
So you're saying that by acting in character, something is witty? So
Mahatma Gandhi advocating nonviolent resistance would be witty?
Duane L. Bigoni
On Wed, 17 Dec 1997, Mark Aaron Richey wrote:
> That does get me. The Simpsons had made fun of Jim Varney and his
> string of critically-lambasted feature films on more than one occasion, yet
> he's guest starring. Perhaps there's a different consesus on his talents
> these days in the Simpsons offices.
Actually, believe it or not, Jim Varney is a trained Shakespearean
actor. Unfortunately, he managed to get into the Ernest rut and
now it's difficult to see him as anything else.
Ondre Lombard
On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Duane L. Bigoni wrote:
> Actually, believe it or not, Jim Varney is a trained Shakespearean
> actor. Unfortunately, he managed to get into the Ernest rut and
> now it's difficult to see him as anything else.
This might explain why Jim Varney played a somewhat Shakespearean
prince on Roseanne in 1996. Why do all the good actors screw themselves up.
Another "believe it or not": Jamie Foxx (the inane comedy actor in The Jamie
Foxx Show on the WB) can sing and play classical music on the piano.
Ondre