gosh! (I&STM)

2960 views
Skip to first unread message

Alan J Rosenthal

unread,
Nov 3, 1992, 9:24:44 PM11/3/92
to

Wow, what an intense episode. Unfortunately I forgot it was going to be on;
fortunately a room-mate was watching TV and alerted me; unfortunately I knew I
couldn't find a suitable tape to record it on in time, and I didn't know it was
going to be so cool so I didn't take notes. Anyway......

I hope others know even less than I do about early cartoons so that this isn't
too embarassing: Basically the style of the "early scratchy" and early
itchy&scratchy cartoons was an imitation of early versions of Mickey Mouse and
friends. I'm not sure exactly how to describe it, but it's the WAY in which
the level of detail differed. Very dark eyes, a host of things. Plus the
emphasis on music; it must be related to the fact that sound movies were new
and so there was a feeling of continuing the tradition of background music as
if there was no real sound track. I also loved the plot of the first scratchy
movie. Some of those early cartoons were indeed somewhat short on plot. But
it had a date of 1926, did I catch that right? Kind of early...

The bit about Korean animators was pretty daring! Undoubtedly bears a strong
resemblance to reality. :-( For those not in the know, the inbetween frames
in The Simpsons are drawn in Korea.

That bit about the unnamed cameos of Michael Jackson and Dustin Hoffman was
cool. As most of you know, these are the two people who have appeared in The
Simpsons anonymously. Didn't Dustin Hoffman have an explicit contract
guaranteeing him anonymity? I thought about it and reluctantly concluded that
they were not in fact flaunting this contract with what they showed tonight;
after all those not in the know may well conclude that The Simpsons just WISHED
that that had really been Dustin Hoffman and Michael Jackson in the simpsons.

Well, I guess I should stop here as I'm without notes or a rewind button so I
have nothing to say. But I just wanted to express my amazement at the large
quantity of references to previous Simpsons episodes. One that comes to mind
is the bit about a demented Tenessee Williams heroine (Marge in Streetcar).
Well, and complicated references to various things, like "where did he put the
firecracker".

Oh, and Bart is such a shit, and Homer is a moron; what else is new. But I
have to say, I know a family with similar discipline problems regarding a young
boy and I was constantly making parallels during the episode, especially
regarding ridiculously severe punishments (ok, now you get to break HIS teeth).

And, I liked "Itchy and Scratchy The Movie The Novel".

Finally, I'd like to remind y'all that it's true that Bart because a U.S.
Supreme Court judge; this was not a fantasy, but actual footage from 40 years
later.

And yes, I'm even more tired than when I posted incoherent dribble last week.
I'll try to do something about the quality, folks. g'night

Ronald Hogan

unread,
Nov 4, 1992, 12:02:19 AM11/4/92
to
Loved Itchy and Scratchy the movie. But I would be really surprised if
the Disney people don't say something about Steamboat Itchy, one of the
deadliest parodies of a Disney cartoon ever. Dead-on imitation of the
first Mickey Mouse, probably close enough to a copyright violation for
a lawsuit.

Like I really give a f---. Disney has it coming.

My favorite bit was when Scratchy crawls around the bridge on his
bleeding kneecaps leaving a trail behind him.

That and the Norman Mailer novelization of the film (perfect choice).
And Shatner's great line, "Again with the Klingons."

God, I can't say how much I loved Steamboat Itchy. It moved me.

Ron Hogan (rho...@usc.edu)

Ron Carter

unread,
Nov 4, 1992, 2:02:18 AM11/4/92
to
rho...@aludra.usc.edu (Ronald Hogan) writes:

>Loved Itchy and Scratchy the movie. But I would be really surprised if
>the Disney people don't say something about Steamboat Itchy, one of the
>deadliest parodies of a Disney cartoon ever. Dead-on imitation of the
>first Mickey Mouse, probably close enough to a copyright violation for
>a lawsuit.

I would guess that `Steamboat Willy' (the original Disney/M. Mouse
cartoon) is so old that it is in public domain; even if not (and I
am sure there are people who will tell us all...) it probably lands
in the area of satire far enough to get away with...

BTW, I loved `Steamboat Itchy' too... Every one of the early I&S
shorts were great!

--
Ron Carter \ Director \ Center for the Study of Creative Intelligence
CSCI \ Denver, CO USA \ "A ... mind stretched by a new idea can never
rca...@nyx.cs.du.edu \ go back to its original dimensions." -Holmes

J.D. Baldwin

unread,
Nov 4, 1992, 12:50:02 PM11/4/92
to
Ron Hogan (rho...@usc.edu) writes:
>God, I can't say how much I loved Steamboat Itchy. It moved me.

It certainly was a thing of beauty. But the great moment for me was
the Scratchy-into-the-sawblade bit. Itchy waving his hands, looking
at his watch, then getting fed up and just hacking the cat to bits
with an axe . . . well, my reaction to it was probably an insight into
my own personality that's just too personal to share.
--
From the catapult of: |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / bal...@usna.navy.mil |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

John R. Donald

unread,
Nov 4, 1992, 3:28:47 PM11/4/92
to
In article <1992Nov3.2...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> fl...@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
>
>Wow, what an intense episode. ... I didn't know it was

>going to be so cool so I didn't take notes. Anyway......

Intense? I thought this was easily the worst episode ever. Simply not
funny. "Where did he put the firecracker?" I can't imagine child abuse
being funny. Now, somebody being eaten by a gorilla, somebody being hit
by lightning, that's funny. Child abuse is not. The way I interpreted it,
this was a reference to a standard technique of using dolls to get physically/
sexually abused children to talk about the abuse incidents.

Bart dropping his pants. How many times is this funny? Well, it was
funny when we saw it in a previous episode. But I don't think that
Bart's butt is inherintly funny. Also, we have never actually seen
Homer spank Bart, have we? So why does Bart expect it so readily?

Bart as a stripper. Really more repulsive than funny. The bad thing about
things like this is that I used to disagree with parents who didn't let
their children watch the Simpsons - I no longer disagre with them. I
would not have wanted my children (if I had any) to watch that scene.

Star Trek. In Living Color has done it. Saturday Night Live has done it.
Mad magazine has done it. Local high school talent shows have done it.
Now, the Simpsons have done it, and they didn't do it any better than anyone
else. Should have left it alone, and come up with something original.

Homer being very familiar with Chief Justices. (BTW, the title is 'Chief
Justice of the United States', not 'Chief Justice of the Supreme Court' -
don't know if this error was intentional or not, it's not really important.)
Once in a while, when Homer throws out something like that, it is funny.
Yes, it is out of character for Homer to say anything too intellectual, but
I admit one of my favorite Simpson's moment is when Homer is intervening
in an argument between Lisa and the Albanian kid (Adil?) and he says
something about 'the blood of the workers oiling the machinery of
capitalism'. But that was just a one time thing. maybe it was something
that Homer heard once, and it got stuck somewhere in his brain. But
we know that this is an aberration, Homer is simply not a bright guy.
I can't believe he is that familiar with the names of the Supreme
court justices. (However, I did laugh at 'Warren Burger...Mmmmm....Burger...')
It would have been more in character if Lisa had recited the names...

And I didn't like the bit about 40 years from now, although I don't really
have an argument against it. I just didn't like it.

This episode was an appeal to the lowest common denominator. It exploited
cliches instead of exposing them. It twisted character traits in order to
go after laughs. It relied on gimmicks that got a laugh in the past. It
became a parody of itself. I repeat, this was by far the worst episode ever.
I hope it was an aberration - I don't think I have seen these trends in
other recent episodes, so I am hopeful.

-JD

--
"Good Idea, Boss." - Homer Simpson

Gary Parilis

unread,
Nov 5, 1992, 6:40:22 PM11/5/92
to
In article <1992Nov3.2...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> fl...@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:

> movie. Some of those early cartoons were indeed somewhat short on plot. But
> it had a date of 1926, did I catch that right? Kind of early...

I think Kent Brock man said it was 1928, the year you could see Al
Capone (is that who it was?) doin the Charleston (is that what it was)
on a flagpole (I KNOW it was a flagpole ;-). I thought ti was great
that they took 3 unrelated things from the 20's and said you could see
them together! :-)

BTW, did anyone catch what it said at the bottom of the screen at the
end of the old Scratchy cartoons? It looked like a normal type of
thing to me, but I'd be really surprised if MG didn't put something
hilarious in there...

Also, did you notice that Scratchy looked like Felix the Cat, and that
Itchy was wearing Mickey Mouse's shorts?

> And, I liked "Itchy and Scratchy The Movie The Novel".

Wasn't the MOVIE called "The Itchy & Scratchy Movie", though, and not
"Itchy & Scratchy The Movie"?

- Gary

J.D. Baldwin

unread,
Nov 5, 1992, 3:20:16 PM11/5/92
to
In article <1992Nov4.2...@oracle.us.oracle.com>

jdo...@us.oracle.com (John R. Donald) writes:

>I thought this was easily the worst episode ever. Simply not funny.

How soon we forget the stain of "Colonel Homer."

>"Where did he put the firecracker?" I can't imagine child
>abuse being funny. Now, somebody being eaten by a gorilla, somebody
>being hit by lightning, that's funny. Child abuse is not. The way I
>interpreted it, this was a reference to a standard technique of using
>dolls to get physically/ sexually abused children to talk about the
>abuse incidents.

Judgment call. Tasteless it was, no question. Tasteless can be OK if
you can pull off the humor and pull it off well. (Who here didn't
laugh until he cried when Dan Aykroyd said, "Jane, you ignorant slut,
who did you sleep with to get this job?") It was a reference to those
anatomical dolls, I'm sure, but it wasn't an explicit reference to
sexual molestation of children per se. Whether the humor justified
the tastelessness is, as I say, a judgment call. My own judgment says
it didn't quite make it.

>Bart dropping his pants. How many times is this funny? Well, it was
>funny when we saw it in a previous episode. But I don't think that
>Bart's butt is inherintly funny. Also, we have never actually seen
>Homer spank Bart, have we? So why does Bart expect it so readily?

I didn't see it this way. Bart dropped his pants, not for the humor
value of dropping his pants, but to establish the desperation of his
plea. He was willing to endure any level of physical pain ("go
nuts!") if only he could be permitted to see the Itchy and Scratchy
movie.

>Bart as a stripper. Really more repulsive than funny. The bad thing
>about things like this is that I used to disagree with parents who
>didn't let their children watch the Simpsons - I no longer disagre
>with them. I would not have wanted my children (if I had any) to
>watch that scene.

There's no way I'd let small children watch this show, and it's been
my favorite thing on TV for going on three years. It is definitely
for adults. I might let a mature 10-year-old watch it, but that would
be about my limit. (I admit I am conservative in such matters.)

>Star Trek. In Living Color has done it. Saturday Night Live has
>done it. Mad magazine has done it. Local high school talent shows
>have done it. Now, the Simpsons have done it, and they didn't do it
>any better than anyone else. Should have left it alone, and come up
>with something original.

Of course everybody has made fun of it. It is an icon of our culture.
That doesn't mean that there isn't fresh satire to be had there. The
only one of the list you provide that has specifically lampooned the
age of the cast is "In Living Color," and their rendition wasn't
nearly as funny as this one. Shatner's toupee, the title "So Very
Tired," the line "Again with the Klingons," etc. were all gutbusters,
as far as I was concerned.

Now, on the other hand, one may argue that satirizing the pointless
and idiotic Star Trek movies is like satirizing professional
wrestling: there just isn't any way to make it significantly dumber.
There is a case to be made for that criticism, but it's not the same
as the one you make.

>Homer being very familiar with Chief Justices. [. . .] Once in a


>while, when Homer throws out something like that, it is funny. Yes,
>it is out of character for Homer to say anything too intellectual, but

>[. . .]

>But we know that this is an aberration, Homer is simply not a bright
>guy. I can't believe he is that familiar with the names of the
>Supreme court justices.

You almost said it, and I think that you'd agree: this device (having
Homer suddenly pipe up with something intellectual) is funny if used
S P A R I N G L Y. If they overuse it, it will just become stupid.
Twice in three years fits my definition of "sparingly."

>And I didn't like the bit about 40 years from now, although I don't really
>have an argument against it. I just didn't like it.

I was of two minds about this. I thought it was a bit of a weak way
out of the episode, but I got a big kick out of the "also with 'Beauty
and the Beast'" gag and of course the movie footage itself. Homer's
assessment: "Itchy's a jerk," made me laugh, too.

>This episode was an appeal to the lowest common denominator. It
>exploited cliches instead of exposing them. It twisted character
>traits in order to go after laughs. It relied on gimmicks that got a
>laugh in the past. It became a parody of itself. I repeat, this was
>by far the worst episode ever.

I think you are judging it *way* too harshly. It did "exploit" a
couple of cliches, maybe (though the "Star Trek" bit is the only
example I can think of, and that one isn't too strong). I don't know
that any character traits were "twisted," excepting Homer's brief
rendezvous with intelligence.

Besides, you've missed the point: you didn't once mention Itchy and
Scratchy in your post! We were treated to some of the funniest, most
twisted Itchy and Scratchy footage ever, and plenty of it (though,
once again, I will not rest until there is a 24-hour Itchy and
Scratchy cable channel)! How you can judge this episode so harshly
without even a nod to everybody's favorite cat-and-mouse duo is beyond
me.

Sime

unread,
Nov 5, 1992, 1:45:07 PM11/5/92
to
In article <1992Nov4.2...@oracle.us.oracle.com>, jdo...@us.oracle.com

(John R. Donald) says:
>
>In article <1992Nov3.2...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
>fl...@dgp.toronto.edu
>(Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
>>
>>Wow, what an intense episode. ... I didn't know it was
>>going to be so cool so I didn't take notes. Anyway......
>
>Intense? I thought this was easily the worst episode ever. Simply not
>funny. "Where did he put the firecracker?" I can't imagine child abuse

I thought the entire episode was funnier than balls myself...

The Star Trek thing was _hysterical_ . So what if others have done it, it was
a riot! "Sigh. Again with the Klingons..." I died laughing...

Hey, cartoons are rough, especially the Simpsons and Ren and Stimpy. Cartoons
have always been pretty violent, except now we have idiots butchering classics
like Bugs Bunny so we don't see Daffy Duck get his beak blown off ('pronoun
trouble...').

I don't want to see the Simpsons or R & S (or I & S for that matter) become
tame. If they do so, they'll lose their humor. I can see people being nice
on Highway to Heaven. I want my old cartoons.

-Sime

"Hey there! It's....YOU! "Homer, why can't you Let's
How about that... Show any interest?"
Local sports team!" "Because I don't care..." Go

-Mr. Burns -Marge and Homer Pens ! ! !

John R. Donald

unread,
Nov 5, 1992, 10:35:39 PM11/5/92
to
In article <92310.134...@psuvm.psu.edu> TJS...@psuvm.psu.edu (Sime) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.2...@oracle.us.oracle.com>, jdo...@us.oracle.com
>(John R. Donald) says:
>>
>>In article <1992Nov3.2...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
>>fl...@dgp.toronto.edu
>>(Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
>>>
>>>Wow, what an intense episode. ... I didn't know it was
>>>going to be so cool so I didn't take notes. Anyway......
>>
>>Intense? I thought this was easily the worst episode ever. Simply not
>>funny. "Where did he put the firecracker?" I can't imagine child abuse
>
>I thought the entire episode was funnier than balls myself...
>The Star Trek thing was _hysterical_ . So what if others have done it, it was
>a riot! "Sigh. Again with the Klingons..." I died laughing...

right. ha ha, mr scott is fat. mr sulu is old. a laff-riot. gets funnier
every hundreth time. maybe it would have been better if it was topical,
but STVII was released so long ago...

>Hey, cartoons are rough, especially the Simpsons and Ren and Stimpy. Cartoons
>have always been pretty violent, except now we have idiots butchering classics
>like Bugs Bunny so we don't see Daffy Duck get his beak blown off ('pronoun
>trouble...').
>
>I don't want to see the Simpsons or R & S (or I & S for that matter) become
>tame. If they do so, they'll lose their humor. I can see people being nice
>on Highway to Heaven. I want my old cartoons.
>
>-Sime

the simpsons is a new cartoon. its humor has been more sophisticated
than most cartoons. it has effectively use the tools of sarcasm, irony,
social commentary, and not relied entirely on violence for laughs.
i think that the simpsons are making fun of cartoons like I&S, because
they are so idiotic, yet so popular.

-jd

John R. Donald

unread,
Nov 5, 1992, 10:52:52 PM11/5/92
to
In article <BALDWIN.92...@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil> bal...@csservera.scs.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.2...@oracle.us.oracle.com>
>jdo...@us.oracle.com (John R. Donald) writes:
>
>>I thought this was easily the worst episode ever. Simply not funny.
>
>How soon we forget the stain of "Colonel Homer."

Actually, I kind of like Colonel Homer....

... intelligent commentary deleted...

>>Star Trek. ...Now, the Simpsons have done it, and they didn't do it


>>any better than anyone else. Should have left it alone, and come up
>>with something original.
>
>Of course everybody has made fun of it. It is an icon of our culture.
>That doesn't mean that there isn't fresh satire to be had there. The
>only one of the list you provide that has specifically lampooned the
>age of the cast is "In Living Color," and their rendition wasn't
>nearly as funny as this one. Shatner's toupee, the title "So Very
>Tired," the line "Again with the Klingons," etc. were all gutbusters,
>as far as I was concerned.
>
>Now, on the other hand, one may argue that satirizing the pointless
>and idiotic Star Trek movies is like satirizing professional
>wrestling: there just isn't any way to make it significantly dumber.
>There is a case to be made for that criticism, but it's not the same
>as the one you make.
>

ok - is it too late? i want to make that point too...

>>Homer being very familiar with Chief Justices. [. . .] Once in a
>>while, when Homer throws out something like that, it is funny. Yes,
>>it is out of character for Homer to say anything too intellectual, but
>>[. . .]
>>But we know that this is an aberration, Homer is simply not a bright
>>guy. I can't believe he is that familiar with the names of the
>>Supreme court justices.
>
>You almost said it, and I think that you'd agree: this device (having
>Homer suddenly pipe up with something intellectual) is funny if used
>S P A R I N G L Y. If they overuse it, it will just become stupid.
>Twice in three years fits my definition of "sparingly."

exactly right.


>
>>And I didn't like the bit about 40 years from now, although I don't really
>>have an argument against it. I just didn't like it.
>
>I was of two minds about this. I thought it was a bit of a weak way
>out of the episode, but I got a big kick out of the "also with 'Beauty
>and the Beast'" gag and of course the movie footage itself. Homer's
>assessment: "Itchy's a jerk," made me laugh, too.
>
>>This episode was an appeal to the lowest common denominator. It
>>exploited cliches instead of exposing them. It twisted character
>>traits in order to go after laughs. It relied on gimmicks that got a
>>laugh in the past. It became a parody of itself. I repeat, this was
>>by far the worst episode ever.
>
>I think you are judging it *way* too harshly. It did "exploit" a
>couple of cliches, maybe (though the "Star Trek" bit is the only
>example I can think of, and that one isn't too strong). I don't know
>that any character traits were "twisted," excepting Homer's brief
>rendezvous with intelligence.
>
>Besides, you've missed the point: you didn't once mention Itchy and
>Scratchy in your post! We were treated to some of the funniest, most
>twisted Itchy and Scratchy footage ever, and plenty of it (though,
>once again, I will not rest until there is a 24-hour Itchy and
>Scratchy cable channel)! How you can judge this episode so harshly
>without even a nod to everybody's favorite cat-and-mouse duo is beyond
>me.

I hesitate to criticize I&S for fear of being tarred and feathered...
but you are right about judging it too harshly. i only watched it once,
and the first time I watch a new episode I am usually disappointed because
my expectations are so high. I'll try it again.
-jd

>--
> From the catapult of: |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
> _,_ J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
> _|70|___:::)=}- U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
> \ / bal...@usna.navy.mil |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

J.D. Baldwin

unread,
Nov 5, 1992, 8:50:24 PM11/5/92
to
par...@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Gary Parilis) writes:
>BTW, did anyone catch what it said at the bottom of the screen at the
>end of the old Scratchy cartoons? It looked like a normal type of
>thing to me, but I'd be really surprised if MG didn't put something
>hilarious in there...

Well, I'm jumping the gun on the I&S Episode Guide here, but . . . you
asked nicely so:

It had two illegible logos (probably means to represent a Censor Board
seal and a Union-Made seal) with the (correct) dates in roman numerals
under THE END. Beneath it all was PASSED BY NATIONWIDE BOARD OF REVIEW.

>Also, did you notice that Scratchy looked like Felix the Cat, and that
>Itchy was wearing Mickey Mouse's shorts?

And his ears!

>> And, I liked "Itchy and Scratchy The Movie The Novel".
>
> Wasn't the MOVIE called "The Itchy & Scratchy Movie", though, and not
> "Itchy & Scratchy The Movie"?

Hey! Maybe *you* ought to write the Episode Guide.

J.D. Baldwin

unread,
Nov 6, 1992, 8:13:08 AM11/6/92
to
jdo...@us.oracle.com (John R. Donald) writes:
>I hesitate to criticize I&S for fear of being tarred and feathered...

Glad to see that subscribers to this group have inspired the proper
level of fear and awe in regard to this subject.

Tony Shepps

unread,
Nov 5, 1992, 2:05:09 PM11/5/92
to
jdo...@us.oracle.com (John R. Donald) writes:

> Intense? I thought this was easily the worst episode ever. Simply not
> funny.

You need a humor transplant, sir!

> Bart dropping his pants. How many times is this funny? Well, it was
> funny when we saw it in a previous episode. But I don't think that
> Bart's butt is inherintly funny.

Bart's butt wasn't too funny, but Homer's line on seeing it was good: "Don't
point that thing at me!"



> Bart as a stripper. Really more repulsive than funny. The bad thing about
> things like this is that I used to disagree with parents who didn't let
> their children watch the Simpsons - I no longer disagre with them. I
> would not have wanted my children (if I had any) to watch that scene.

So you weren't repulsed by the violence in the I&S cartoons, then?

I advise you not to have any kids. I've seen the children of parents who
freak out at the thought of their kids seeing something like this on TV.
They're not happy kids. They're not well-adjusted kids. They're the kind
of kids who wind up with compulsive or addictive personalities, trying
desperately to deal with a world where it's somehow wrong to even LOOK at
the underside of life.

Parents who don't let their children watch The Simpsons: the most repulsive
set of people I can think of.

--
Also, I think Washington, D.C. should be destroyed.
Tony Shepps to...@cellar.org
Preferred address: toad%cel...@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com
Public access and thoughtful conversation: The Cellar BBS +1 215 654 9184

Frank Stuart

unread,
Nov 7, 1992, 2:40:31 PM11/7/92
to
>jdo...@us.oracle.com (John R. Donald) writes:
>>I hesitate to criticize I&S for fear of being tarred and feathered...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>
>Glad to see that subscribers to this group have inspired the proper
>level of fear and awe in regard to this subject.

Come, on. Any avid I&S fan can come up with something more creative than
tar and feathers.....


Frank Stuart | grep: dead.trees: Permission denied
fst...@eng.auburn.edu | MMMMmmmmm, Soylent Green

Sime

unread,
Nov 7, 1992, 4:08:06 AM11/7/92
to
In article <1992Nov6.0...@oracle.us.oracle.com>, jdo...@us.oracle.com

(John R. Donald) says:
>but you are right about judging it too harshly. i only watched it once,
>and the first time I watch a new episode I am usually disappointed because
>my expectations are so high. I'll try it again.

I have seen this episode at least 3 times since tuesday.

I think you people take this show much too seriously.
It is a cartoon. Watch it as if it were one, because it is.
People obviously have varying opinions on how good episodes are, of course
but IT IS JUST A CARTOON DAMMIT SO DONT WORRY TOO MUCH ABOUT IT OK??!!??!!

Geeesh take a chill people....

-Sime

"Hey there! It's....YOU! "Homer, why can't you Let's
How about that... Show any interest?"
Local sports team!" "Because I don't care..." Go

-Mr. Burns -Marge and Homer Pens ! ! !


By the way, I also dont care if I got one of these quotes wrong, I am just
puttting them in my sig to get the point across that I like the show not that I
can memorize the Simpsons word for word like a severe GEEK or something, I do
have somewhat of a life unlike some people, so if you are offended, chill out..

Alan J Rosenthal

unread,
Nov 6, 1992, 10:24:49 PM11/6/92
to
jdo...@us.oracle.com (John R. Donald) writes:
>"Where did he put the firecracker?" I can't imagine child abuse
>being funny.

Well, although this was clearly a reference to child abuse investigation
techniques (to the person who said it wasn't, you're wrong; it's a cliche'
technique to get the child to point to parts of the body of an anatomically
correct doll, and furthermore the doll looked like him), I didn't think that
the child was specifically claiming to be abused. I thought that this was yet
another obscenity reference, with the child saying that Bart had shoved the
firecrackers up his ass. This can't be taken too literally, he wouldn't still
be here, so I think you just have to think "shoved it up his ass, ha hahahaha"
in a somewhat mindless way. I'm good at being mindless and it was funny.

>Bart dropping his pants. How many times is this funny?

...


>Also, we have never actually seen Homer spank Bart, have we? So why does Bart
>expect it so readily?

Yeah, that's a good point, especially given the content of this episode.
But Homer does get extraordinarily angry with Bart quite frequently and I can
imagine him striking him in a moment of anger.

>... Homer is simply not a bright guy.


>I can't believe he is that familiar with the names of the Supreme
>court justices.

Ah, Homer's level of stupidity has always been kind of inconsistent.

>And I didn't like the bit about 40 years from now, although I don't really
>have an argument against it. I just didn't like it.

One thing which was disappointing about it is that we actually get to see that
Bart will become a Supreme Court justice. I guess this is a continuation of
the Clarence Thomas reference, but it's somehow disappointing to imagine a
prestigious future for Bart. He should just go on being Bart.

Mel Walker

unread,
Nov 6, 1992, 3:38:28 PM11/6/92
to
In article <1992Nov6.0...@oracle.us.oracle.com> John R. Donald,

jdo...@us.oracle.com writes:
>>I thought the entire episode was funnier than balls myself...
>>The Star Trek thing was _hysterical_ . So what if others have done it,
it was
>>a riot! "Sigh. Again with the Klingons..." I died laughing...
>
>right. ha ha, mr scott is fat. mr sulu is old. a laff-riot. gets
funnier
>every hundreth time. maybe it would have been better if it was topical,
>but STVII was released so long ago...

I have to agree with "hysterical". Sulu old: not funny. "Again with the
Klingons": funny. Scotty fat: not too funny. "I canna reach the
controls": funny, mostly because they got the voice pretty good, although
I think it sounded a lot like the school janitor. It must be awful to
have something only be funny the first time. What do you do when the rest
of us watch Simpsons re-runs?

Topical? Star Trek has been around for a decades now. BTW, I don't
remember a STVII, of course, I don't remember much of STV either.... :-)
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

--Mel Walker
mwa...@novell.com
Disclaimer: Some Martians landed and stole my opinions. So if these
opinions sound like they're coming from Mars, that's why.

Tina Cacolice

unread,
Nov 6, 1992, 12:15:45 PM11/6/92
to
>
>In article <1992Nov4.2...@oracle.us.oracle.com>
>jdo...@us.oracle.com (John R. Donald) writes:
>
>>I thought this was easily the worst episode ever. Simply not funny.

I have to agree. I know there were a few good jokes, but the only really
funny part (to me) of Itchy and Scratchy is that everyone thinks it
is so funny. Even Donald Duck gets put back together on camera most
times. And I don't recall any chain saws or hatchets either.

Don't you think the greatest part of the Simpsons is all the clever
references? I think the subtler the humor is, the funnier it is.
Like when they scan the house and a treasure chest and human skeleton
are between the floorboards.

--

"All the good signature file quotes are taken."

-- responses to ti...@rjlg.com

bruce watson

unread,
Nov 6, 1992, 5:20:06 PM11/6/92
to
I like this one.

Poison Pizza - Oh, No! I'm not making two stops.

Marge at the board: "I will try to raise a better child."

...then we'll put you in the home we saw on 60 minutes.

Maybe this time I'll just have to straighten up and fly..(perfect timing)

Native American Ice Cream (formerly Chief Crazy Cone)

The entire thing with the history of the cartoon: Happy Kat (Krazy Kat),
Steamboat Itchy (Steamboat Willie) - Hitler - FDR

Defining event of our generation - first lunar landing - Yummy, Yummy, Yummy
there's love in my tummy.

I&S-The Movie referencing the Simpsons (uncredited voices) and "demented
melancholia of a Tenessee Williams heroine.

40 years later (notice all the "Back to the Future" stuff)

Bruce "hic, kill me...hic, kill me...hic, kill me" Watson

--
Bruce Watson wa...@nyx.cs.du.edu Toy Cows, Toy Cows in Africa, Toy Cows

Bucky Whaley

unread,
Nov 7, 1992, 10:35:44 AM11/7/92
to

fl...@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) says:
>One thing which was disappointing about it is that we actually get to see that
>Bart will become a Supreme Court justice.

Yes. He seemed so... tired. So... dulled. The Anti-Bart.

-Bucky "Bart, stop being confident!" Whaley

--
bw...@cleveland.freenet.edu Hey, look at me! I'm Blanche Dubois!
Mmm... lutefisk! - Bart, "A Streetcar Named Marge"

John R. Donald

unread,
Nov 6, 1992, 2:13:16 PM11/6/92
to
In article <aJ6RTB...@cellar.org> to...@cellar.org (Tony Shepps) writes:
>jdo...@us.oracle.com (John R. Donald) writes:
>
>> Intense? I thought this was easily the worst episode ever. Simply not
>> funny.
>
>You need a humor transplant, sir!

??? I am an avid simpsons fan - (and seinfeld too). I think my sense
of humor is pretty well developed. I can distinguish between funny and
non-funny. funniness cannot be produced by a formula, whether the formula
is a man from outer space saying "nanoo-nanoo" or a cartoon cat and mouse
bashing each other.
>
>> Bart dropping his pants. How many times is this funny? ...


>
>Bart's butt wasn't too funny, but Homer's line on seeing it was good: "Don't
>point that thing at me!"

ok, the line was funny...


>
>> Bart as a stripper. Really more repulsive than funny. The bad thing about
>> things like this is that I used to disagree with parents who didn't let
>> their children watch the Simpsons - I no longer disagre with them. I
>> would not have wanted my children (if I had any) to watch that scene.
>
>So you weren't repulsed by the violence in the I&S cartoons, then?

no - but i didnt really think it was funny. I think a little of I&S goes
a long way. otherwise the simpsons are relying on the same comedy formulas
that they satarize.

>I advise you not to have any kids. I've seen the children of parents who
>freak out at the thought of their kids seeing something like this on TV.
>They're not happy kids. They're not well-adjusted kids. They're the kind
>of kids who wind up with compulsive or addictive personalities, trying
>desperately to deal with a world where it's somehow wrong to even LOOK at
>the underside of life.
>Parents who don't let their children watch The Simpsons: the most repulsive
>set of people I can think of.

Who died and appointed you Dr. Spock? Anyone who thinks there should be
no limits on what a child should see will, in my opinion, end up with a child
with at least as many problems as those you list. The age at which a child
can understand why something is funny is the age at which it is appropriate
for them to see it.

i stand by my original review - this was the worst episode ever. (but, like
all, it had some pretty funny spots.)

-jd

>--
>Also, I think Washington, D.C. should be destroyed.
>Tony Shepps to...@cellar.org
>Preferred address: toad%cel...@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com
>Public access and thoughtful conversation: The Cellar BBS +1 215 654 9184

Chris Baird

unread,
Nov 7, 1992, 9:54:27 PM11/7/92
to

Sime sincerely remarks:
^
^ I think you people take this show much too seriously.
^ It is a cartoon. Watch it as if it were one, because it is.
^ People obviously have varying opinions on how good episodes are, of course
^ but IT IS JUST A CARTOON DAMMIT SO DONT WORRY TOO MUCH ABOUT IT OK??!!??!!

Pffft,, there have been entire PhD's dedicated to the likes of William
Shakespeare, E.A. Poe, A.B. Patterson, et al. In what way are ``The
Simpsons'' any different?

Please, it's usually considered impolite to trash someone else's
belief system...

-- El Bairdo,,

John R. Donald

unread,
Nov 8, 1992, 4:48:26 PM11/8/92
to
i have an idea - why dont you and Robert Holmes get together and have a lot
of fun telling each other how cool you are, and how much of a dork everyone
else is. you'll probably get tired of it after a while and realize that
you both have some growing up to do.
-jd

Steve Stelter

unread,
Nov 8, 1992, 10:30:23 PM11/8/92
to
bwa...@nyx.cs.du.edu (bruce watson) writes:

>I like this one.

I did too, but not quite as much as I had hoped. Horrendously weak ending,
aside from Homer's "Mmmm...soylent green" line, and the animation and lip-
synching irritated me a bit.

>The entire thing with the history of the cartoon: Happy Kat (Krazy Kat),
>Steamboat Itchy (Steamboat Willie) - Hitler - FDR

A dead-on imitation of those old '20s and '30s cartoons: eyeballs rendered
as solid black ovals, characters whistling along with the background music,
an extremely easygoing nature. Fantastic!


--Steve "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" Stelter
sjs2...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

Steve Stelter

unread,
Nov 8, 1992, 10:36:58 PM11/8/92
to
bw...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Bucky Whaley) writes:


>fl...@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) says:
>>One thing which was disappointing about it is that we actually get to see that
>>Bart will become a Supreme Court justice.

>Yes. He seemed so... tired. So... dulled. The Anti-Bart.

True. On the other hand, at least we are reassured that Homer will be alive
six months from now.


--Steve Stelter
sjs2...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

Chris Baird

unread,
Nov 9, 1992, 8:04:10 AM11/9/92
to

Steve Stelter writes:
> Alan Rosenthal says:

> > And someone else writes:
> > >
> > > One thing which was disappointing about it is that we actually get to see
> > > that Bart will become a Supreme Court justice.
> >
> > Yes. He seemed so... tired. So... dulled. The Anti-Bart.
>
> True. On the other hand, at least we are reassured that Homer will be alive
> six months from now.

I wonder if Bart finally got that tattoo?

--
Chris Baird,, <c892...@mystra.newcastle.edu.au>

Russ Poffenberger

unread,
Nov 9, 1992, 6:53:23 PM11/9/92
to
Ron Carter (rca...@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:

: rho...@aludra.usc.edu (Ronald Hogan) writes:
:
: >Loved Itchy and Scratchy the movie. But I would be really surprised if
: >the Disney people don't say something about Steamboat Itchy, one of the
: >deadliest parodies of a Disney cartoon ever. Dead-on imitation of the
: >first Mickey Mouse, probably close enough to a copyright violation for
: >a lawsuit.
:
: I would guess that `Steamboat Willy' (the original Disney/M. Mouse
: cartoon) is so old that it is in public domain; even if not (and I
: am sure there are people who will tell us all...) it probably lands
: in the area of satire far enough to get away with...
:

I am not an expert in copyright law, but copyright protects an expression of
an idea. The copyright is valid for as long as the holder is alive/in business
plus something like 50 years. I am sure that the copyright on Steamboat Willy
is still valid, but there are fair-use clauses that allows a little leeway.

Russ Poffenberger DOMAIN: pof...@sj.ate.slb.com
Schlumberger Technologies ATE UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen
1601 Technology Drive CIS: 72401,276
San Jose, Ca. 95110 Voice: (408)437-5254 FAX: (408)437-5246

Ryan Collins

unread,
Nov 9, 1992, 12:17:01 PM11/9/92
to
In article <1992Nov6.2...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>, fl...@dgp.toronto.edu
Who's to say that we'll ever see anyone grown up on the Simpsons? That's
one of the great things of the show. They don't have to worry about anyone
outgrowing their parts. (Although I can see the birthday episodes getting
a little thin.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ryan 'Gozar' Collins ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
o__)\ rlco...@miavx1.BITNET
/ ) RC1D...@miamiu.acs.muohio.edu
/ / ____ rcol...@apsvax.aps.muohio.edu
/(____/__(_) o)_/ R.COLLINS1 (On GEnie)
/)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Yea, right, thats what I said.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Alan J Rosenthal

unread,
Nov 10, 1992, 2:45:14 PM11/10/92
to
Ryan Collins <RC1D...@MIAMIU.BITNET> writes:
>fl...@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) says:
>>One thing which was disappointing about it is that we actually get to see that
>>Bart will become a Supreme Court justice. I guess this is a continuation of
>>the Clarence Thomas reference, but it's somehow disappointing to imagine a
>>prestigious future for Bart. He should just go on being Bart.
>
>Who's to say that we'll ever see anyone grown up on the Simpsons? That's
>one of the great things of the show.

Ahem, we DID just see someone grown up on the Simpsons.

Carl Oppedahl

unread,
Nov 12, 1992, 12:24:15 AM11/12/92
to
In <1992Nov9.2...@sj.ate.slb.com> pof...@sj.ate.slb.com (Russ Poffenberger) writes:

>Ron Carter (rca...@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
>: rho...@aludra.usc.edu (Ronald Hogan) writes:
>:
>: >Loved Itchy and Scratchy the movie. But I would be really surprised if
>: >the Disney people don't say something about Steamboat Itchy, one of the
>: >deadliest parodies of a Disney cartoon ever. Dead-on imitation of the
>: >first Mickey Mouse, probably close enough to a copyright violation for
>: >a lawsuit.
>:
>: I would guess that `Steamboat Willy' (the original Disney/M. Mouse
>: cartoon) is so old that it is in public domain; even if not (and I
>: am sure there are people who will tell us all...) it probably lands
>: in the area of satire far enough to get away with...
>:

>I am not an expert in copyright law, but copyright protects an expression of
>an idea. The copyright is valid for as long as the holder is alive/in business
>plus something like 50 years. I am sure that the copyright on Steamboat Willy
>is still valid, but there are fair-use clauses that allows a little leeway.

Depends when the work was published ... for works before the 1978 revision
of the Copyright Act, the term was 28 years, renewable to 56. Lots of
things have moved into the public domain recently because of the 56 years.
I don't know when the 56 years will be up for Casablanca, but you can bet
the owners will promote it vigorously in the months before expiration.


Carl Oppedahl AA2KW (intellectual property lawyer)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112-0228
voice 212-408-2578 fax 212-765-2519

Jym Dyer

unread,
Nov 19, 1992, 7:33:48 PM11/19/92
to
>> say something about Steamboat Itchy, one of the deadliest
>> parodies of a Disney cartoon ever. . . . probably close

>> enough to a copyright violation for a lawsuit.
> I would guess that `Steamboat Willy' (the original Disney/M.
> Mouse cartoon) is so old that it is in public domain . . .

=\= Perhaps I can shed some light on this . . .

=\= The Mickey Mouse animated shorts spun off a newspaper strip.
The newspaper strip is indeed old enough that it has fallen into
the public domain, so it would follow that "Steamboat Willy" is
also old enough for its copyright to have expired.

=\= The likeness of Mickey Mouse, however, is trademarked, and
trademarks last for All Eternity (or something close to it).
Disney has actually used this to keep people from reprinting
the public domain comic strips.

=\= I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that the consequence of
this state of affairs is that it would be totally legal to copy,
or even use, the actual scenes from "Steamboat Willy" as long
as you didn't show Mickey's trademarked head.
Replacing it with Itchy's head should suffice. .-. .-.
<_Jym_> / / / /
|\/\/\/| / / / /
::| |::: Jym Dyer ::::::: j...@mica.berkeley.edu ::/ / / /::
::| (o)(o):::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::(o)(o) /:::
::C _):::: Annoying Republicans since 1960 :::::O___ /::::
:::| `-__|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::UUUo (:::::

GFW

unread,
Jul 19, 2012, 4:28:46 PM7/19/12
to
On Wednesday, November 4, 1992 8:03:54 PM UTC, John R. Donald wrote:
> In article &lt;1992Nov3.2...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu&gt; fl...@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
> &gt;
> &gt;Wow, what an intense episode. ... I didn&#39;t know it was
> &gt;going to be so cool so I didn&#39;t take notes. Anyway......
>
> Intense? I thought this was easily the worst episode ever. Simply not
> funny. &quot;Where did he put the firecracker?&quot; I can&#39;t imagine child abuse
> being funny. Now, somebody being eaten by a gorilla, somebody being hit
> by lightning, that&#39;s funny. Child abuse is not. The way I interpreted it,
> this was a reference to a standard technique of using dolls to get physically/
> sexually abused children to talk about the abuse incidents.
>
> Bart dropping his pants. How many times is this funny? Well, it was
> funny when we saw it in a previous episode. But I don&#39;t think that
> Bart&#39;s butt is inherintly funny. Also, we have never actually seen
> Homer spank Bart, have we? So why does Bart expect it so readily?
>
> Bart as a stripper. Really more repulsive than funny. The bad thing about
> things like this is that I used to disagree with parents who didn&#39;t let
> their children watch the Simpsons - I no longer disagre with them. I
> would not have wanted my children (if I had any) to watch that scene.
>
> Star Trek. In Living Color has done it. Saturday Night Live has done it.
> Mad magazine has done it. Local high school talent shows have done it.
> Now, the Simpsons have done it, and they didn&#39;t do it any better than anyone
> else. Should have left it alone, and come up with something original.
>
> Homer being very familiar with Chief Justices. (BTW, the title is &#39;Chief
> Justice of the United States&#39;, not &#39;Chief Justice of the Supreme Court&#39; -
> don&#39;t know if this error was intentional or not, it&#39;s not really important.)
> Once in a while, when Homer throws out something like that, it is funny.
> Yes, it is out of character for Homer to say anything too intellectual, but
> I admit one of my favorite Simpson&#39;s moment is when Homer is intervening
> in an argument between Lisa and the Albanian kid (Adil?) and he says
> something about &#39;the blood of the workers oiling the machinery of
> capitalism&#39;. But that was just a one time thing. maybe it was something
> that Homer heard once, and it got stuck somewhere in his brain. But
> we know that this is an aberration, Homer is simply not a bright guy.
> I can&#39;t believe he is that familiar with the names of the Supreme
> court justices. (However, I did laugh at &#39;Warren Burger...Mmmmm....Burger...&#39;)
> It would have been more in character if Lisa had recited the names...
>
> And I didn&#39;t like the bit about 40 years from now, although I don&#39;t really
> have an argument against it. I just didn&#39;t like it.
>
> This episode was an appeal to the lowest common denominator. It exploited
> cliches instead of exposing them. It twisted character traits in order to
> go after laughs. It relied on gimmicks that got a laugh in the past. It
> became a parody of itself. I repeat, this was by far the worst episode ever.
> I hope it was an aberration - I don&#39;t think I have seen these trends in
> other recent episodes, so I am hopeful.
>
> -JD
>
>
>
> --
> &quot;Good Idea, Boss.&quot; - Homer Simpson


Inspiration for Comic Book Guy?

tehd...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 12, 2012, 1:56:20 PM10/12/12
to
test

justg...@gmail.com

unread,
May 31, 2015, 11:24:40 AM5/31/15
to
Hello Comic Book Guy!

jdo...@us.oracle.com

On Wednesday, November 4, 1992 at 3:03:54 PM UTC-5, John R. Donald wrote:
> In article <1992Nov3.2...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> fl...@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:

> Intense? I thought this was easily the worst episode ever. Simply not

-snip-

>
> -JD
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages