How can Kirk Van Houten losing his arm be out of character.....
Jake Lennington
Don't forget Lance Murdock. He was the guy from "Bart the Daredevil"
who was attacked by the lion in the pool that he jumped over on his
motorcycle.
Ondre Lombard
On 11 Dec 1997, Jeremy Reaban wrote:
> Yes, but as I've pointed out, arms can be re-attached! It happens all the
> time. Welcome to the modern age! It's not like Kirk Van Houten was using
> his arm at the end of the show - it was in a sling, apparently still
> healing.
There was also no indication of bloodshed as a result of Kirk's
amputation. Kind of making it seem like a carefree gag reminiscent of Looney
Tunes.
And anyway, I don't dig those intensely graphic and violent gags
anyway. I don't see what's so funny getting a sadistic giggle out of a
character being chopped up like that. (Only reason I&S are so funny is
because it's an obvious and absurd exaggeration of ordinary cartoon violence.)
Ondre
Jeremy Reaban
for the Simpsons when we've seen:
Sherry Bobbins get sucked into the engine of an airplane and chopped to
bits
A Cat (and Rex Bannor) catapulted away (and presumably killed)
A prisoner due the death penalty briefly escapes before getting fried on
power lines
Several other acts of violence, including large animals attacking people,
monkeys attacking people, Homer falling on a fire hydrant (which is one of
the most painful things I've seen), Homer stepping right on a nail
Asa Glick (?) getting blown to pieces by a grenade (we see bits of him, as
well)
I'm pretty sure there have been other deaths, occasionally gruesome...
Jaime J. Weinman
Jeremy Reaban wrote:
>
> for the Simpsons when we've seen:
>
> Sherry Bobbins get sucked into the engine of an airplane and chopped to
> bits
> A Cat (and Rex Bannor) catapulted away (and presumably killed)
> A prisoner due the death penalty briefly escapes before getting fried on
> power lines
> Several other acts of violence, including large animals attacking people,
> monkeys attacking people, Homer falling on a fire hydrant (which is one of
> the most painful things I've seen), Homer stepping right on a nail
> Asa Glick (?) getting blown to pieces by a grenade (we see bits of him, as
> well)
This is all true, but what happened to Mr. Van Houten was that he lost
his arm and then apparently got it back--just in a sling--at the end. I
agree that gruesome gags are not out of synch with the show, but--with
the exception of Sideshow Bob--characters on "The Simpsons" get hurt
according to the laws of human, as opposed to cartoon, physics. When
Homer falls into Springfield Gorge, he doesn't just pick himself up like
a certain coyote we could mention.
Jaime J. Weinman
Jeremy Reaban
Yes, but as I've pointed out, arms can be re-attached! It happens all the
time. Welcome to the modern age! It's not like Kirk Van Houten was using
his arm at the end of the show - it was in a sling, apparently still
healing.
Jaime J. Weinman <beavers...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<348F9F...@hotmail.com>...
> Jeremy Reaban wrote:
<snip>
Jeremy Reaban
Never having seen a person's arm being sliced off with piano wire, I don't
know for sure, but I'm guessing , like most cuts, that it won't bleed the
exact instant the arm was severed - it might take a second. And by that
time, the gag was over - the whole arm incident was very quick.
Now, I personally didn't think it very funny (I actually don't like Kirk
Van Houten very much, and I almost wish it had been his head, to write him
out of any future scripts), but I do think the gag was pretty clever. The
set up made you think the sandwich was going to get cut .
As to graphic violence - that's been part of the Simpson's from the
begining. Look at how many times Homer used to choke Bart, to the point of
where he gags for breath? In real life, he'd be dead, or Homer would be in
jail for child abuse (or murder).
Ondre Lombard <olom...@lombard.cyberverse.com> wrote in article
<snip>
Michael Miller
And the late, unlamented Frank "Grimey" Grimes...
Peace,
Michae
Ondre Lombard
On 11 Dec 1997, Jeremy Reaban wrote:
> Now, I personally didn't think it very funny (I actually don't like Kirk
> Van Houten very much, and I almost wish it had been his head, to write him
> out of any future scripts), but I do think the gag was pretty clever. The
> set up made you think the sandwich was going to get cut .
Actually, I kind of had a feeling they'd do something worse than the
predictable sandwich gag. 'Course I was right. IMO it would have sufficed
for the gag to end with Homer ducking.
> As to graphic violence - that's been part of the Simpson's from the
> begining. Look at how many times Homer used to choke Bart, to the point of
> where he gags for breath? In real life, he'd be dead, or Homer would be in
> jail for child abuse (or murder).
Well, I've been choked before, for like an hour. It could've been
serious, but I dealt with it kind of okay for at least 40 mins.
That's not graphic violence, in my opinion. Graphic violence is
anything Quentin Tarantino might find poignant WRT social commentary, like an
ear being whacked off, or someone having their toenails pulled off or
something.
Ondre
Andy Langager
Jaime J. Weinman wrote:
> Jeremy Reaban wrote:
> >
> > for the Simpsons when we've seen:
> >
> > Sherry Bobbins get sucked into the engine of an airplane and chopped to
> > bits
> > A Cat (and Rex Bannor) catapulted away (and presumably killed)
> > A prisoner due the death penalty briefly escapes before getting fried on
> > power lines
> > Several other acts of violence, including large animals attacking people,
> > monkeys attacking people, Homer falling on a fire hydrant (which is one of
> > the most painful things I've seen), Homer stepping right on a nail
> > Asa Glick (?) getting blown to pieces by a grenade (we see bits of him, as
> > well)
>
> This is all true, but what happened to Mr. Van Houten was that he lost
> his arm and then apparently got it back--just in a sling--at the end. I
> agree that gruesome gags are not out of synch with the show, but--with
> the exception of Sideshow Bob--characters on "The Simpsons" get hurt
> according to the laws of human, as opposed to cartoon, physics. When
> Homer falls into Springfield Gorge, he doesn't just pick himself up like
> a certain coyote we could mention.
>
> Jaime J. Weinman
First of all, yes it is possible to re-attacht an arm. It might not be 100%
functional, but you can put that sucker back on.
Second, it's a cartoon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
.Andy - alan...@iastate.edu - Remove Z to reply email
-------------------------------------------------------------
"In the year 2000... an armed rebellion of apes on horse-back
will be crushed by a revolt of armed horses on ape-back."
-Late Night with Conan O'Brien
--------------------------------------------------------------
She's the Fastest
I like the reaction when his arm got sliced
off. He just sat there in his car for a sec and
said "Ow."
-She's the Fastest
Scott
> Actually, I kind of had a feeling they'd do something worse than the
> predictable sandwich gag. 'Course I was right. IMO it would have sufficed
> for the gag to end with Homer ducking.
Frankly, I was looking for something a bit more imaginative. Something
along the lines of after Homer ducks, switching back to the story. Then,
later in the show, having Snake drive into the wire with his car while
trying to escape from the police. The point being, coming back to the
gag at a later time in the show, a la Road Runner.
Ondre Lombard
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Andy Langager wrote:
>
> First of all, yes it is possible to re-attacht an arm. It might not be 100%
> functional, but you can put that sucker back on.
> Second, it's a cartoon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please tell me you aren't narrow-minded enough to believe nothing
that is animated can be taken seriously. Time and time again we've been shown
that the characters in the Simpsons can be three-dimensional, so it's quite
obvious that just because "it's a cartoon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" doesn't
mean it has to act like every other damned cartoon that ever graced the
Saturday morning airwaves. Gags like this make the series more and more
shallow, and less and less interesting.
There used to be something of a difference between Itchy & Scratchy
and the actual show. I'm starting to no longer see the difference.
Ondre
MEBuckle66
Wow! After reading what everyone wrote, I still don't know which side to take.
Miranda B.
JJJAAAZZZ
>And the late, unlamented Frank "Grimey" Grimes...
>
>Peace,
>
>Michae
>
was a good guy, but the whole point of that episode
pretty much made his demise inevitable. A happy ending
would've ruined the episode. So in that sense, I'm "glad"
he died.
---------------------------------------------------
"The strong must protect the sweet"
ericp...@spamsucks!!!pb.net
> Ondre Lombard <olom...@lombard.cyberverse.com> writes:
> There used to be something of a difference between Itchy & Scratchy
> and the actual show. I'm starting to no longer see the difference.
>>>>
You reminded me of a great 3-part story in the Simpsons
comic book from about two years back. Itchy and Scratchy
actually broke out of the TV set and into the Simpson's living
room.
Bart and Lisa did some investigating, and found the two
aliens, Kodos and Kang, were behind it.
VoVat
On 11 Dec 1997 08:15:05 GMT, the one known as Jeremy Reaban
<j...@XXXinlink.com> wrote thusly:
>As to graphic violence - that's been part of the Simpson's from the
>begining. Look at how many times Homer used to choke Bart, to the point
of
>where he gags for breath? In real life, he'd be dead, or Homer would be
in
>jail for child abuse (or murder).
Homer always stops before he can cause Bart any serious harm. Still, I
admit that characters on the show tend to live through more than any real
person could. It seems like someone gets a major operation in at least
every other episode.
--
Nathan Mulac DeHoff
vo...@geocities.com or ln...@grove.iup.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Corridor/5447/
"I'm having a wonderful time, but I'd rather be whistling in the dark."
Doc Quack
vo...@geocities.com (VoVat) wrote:
>On 11 Dec 1997 08:15:05 GMT, the one known as Jeremy Reaban
><j...@XXXinlink.com> wrote thusly:
>>As to graphic violence - that's been part of the Simpson's from the
>>begining. Look at how many times Homer used to choke Bart, to the point
>of
>>where he gags for breath? In real life, he'd be dead, or Homer would be
>in
>>jail for child abuse (or murder).
>
>Homer always stops before he can cause Bart any serious harm. Still, I
>admit that characters on the show tend to live through more than any real
>person could. It seems like someone gets a major operation in at least
>every other episode.
In many ways this reminds me of the discussion that was in here after Homer vs
the 18th. Some people were very upset about the cat being tossed to oblivion on
the Cat-a-pult. They were actually contending that the cat had been killed,
even after being assured that no actual cats had been harmed in the drawing of
that episode of the Simpsons.
Even after viewing the show four times, I'm still not sure what my own reactions
are to the chopped arm gag.
I notice that someone has said that the arm could be re-attached. IF the
person received medical attention very fast and didn't bleed to death first (a
limb cut off like that would have major blood vessels pumping large amounts of
blood out, immediately!), but piano wire is not sharp, just thin and the nerves
would likely be shredded, making the limb useless even if attached. Likely
have some surface feeling, but the ability to control the hand would never
return. (but there have been some miracles.)
Back to the subject, The gag seemed to be included just so someone could jump up
and say: "You thought the sandwich was going to be sliced, didn't you? And then
it was his arm! Ha-ha."
It was a shock the first time, but upon more viewing it became increasingly
lame. It contributed nothing to the story, and could be chopped without any
effect on the show. I think I've seen others that say the show would be
improved by cutting the bit and I certainly understand their point.
It seems to me that there's always been some cartoonish harm in the Simpsons,
for example, after Homer skateboarded into a canyon and smashed his head into
the sides, three or four times, nobody expected him to remain permanently brain
damaged. It was a funny bit. Likewise, nobody expects Kirk to remain
handicapped by the inability to use his right arm.
I'm guessing that the thing some people find disturbing is the fact that the
loss of the arm came from an intentional attempt to kill or injure. The same
feeling would likely exist if SS Bob managed to chop Barts arm off while chasing
him.
Doc
"I used to be 'with it', but then they changed what 'it' was. Now what
I'm 'with' isn't 'it', and what's 'it' seems weird and scary to me."
Thurston
> Ondre Lombard <olom...@lombard.cyberverse.com> writes:
> There used to be something of a difference between Itchy & Scratchy
> and the actual show. I'm starting to no longer see the difference.
>>>>
Simple: "Life" imitating art.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solon Boomer-Jenks
Ondre Lombard wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Andy Langager wrote:
> >
> > First of all, yes it is possible to re-attacht an arm. It might not be 100%
> > functional, but you can put that sucker back on.
> > Second, it's a cartoon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Please tell me you aren't narrow-minded enough to believe nothing
> that is animated can be taken seriously. Time and time again we've been shown
> that the characters in the Simpsons can be three-dimensional, so it's quite
> obvious that just because "it's a cartoon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" doesn't
> mean it has to act like every other damned cartoon that ever graced the
> Saturday morning airwaves. Gags like this make the series more and more
> shallow, and less and less interesting.
>
> There used to be something of a difference between Itchy & Scratchy
> and the actual show. I'm starting to no longer see the difference.
>
> Ondre
Yes, there is a huge difference. Itche and Steche may kill each other like iteits,
but the people on the actual show rarely get killed. Two twins were seperated with a
rope in "Marge vs. The Monorail" Homer bounced down a cliff in "Bart The Daredevil".
Cartoons are "just a bunch of hilarious stuff you know, like
people getting hurt and stuff, stuff like that."
Solon
monk...@worldnet.att.net
On Fri, 12 Dec 1997 18:07:57 GMT, XXXdo...@worldnet.att.net (Doc
Quack) wrote:
>vo...@geocities.com (VoVat) wrote:
>
>It was a shock the first time, but upon more viewing it became increasingly
>lame. It contributed nothing to the story, and could be chopped without any
>effect on the show. I think I've seen others that say the show would be
>improved by cutting the bit and I certainly understand their point.
>
Exactly. When re-shown in syndication, anyone who's ever seen the ep
will already know what to expect, so there goes whatever humour that
lame gag had in the first place. It was shocking the first time, but
the second and third time, it will seem even more pointless than it
already is. Most of the really classis episodes shown in syndication
don't really have such pointless gags, so even though the dedicated
viewer knows what's going to happen, they can still enjoy the
well-written sequences.
monk...@worldnet.att.net
On 12 Dec 1997 06:20:50 GMT, ericperlin@SPAMSUCKS!!!pb.net wrote:
>> Ondre Lombard <olom...@lombard.cyberverse.com> writes:
>
>> There used to be something of a difference between Itchy & Scratchy
>> and the actual show. I'm starting to no longer see the difference.
>>>>>
>
>comic book from about two years back. Itchy and Scratchy
>actually broke out of the TV set and into the Simpson's living
>room.
>
>Bart and Lisa did some investigating, and found the two
>aliens, Kodos and Kang, were behind it.
>
>ericp...@pb.net
>
>
Sadly, I stopped collecting those comics a while ago, and I really
need to track down back issues, but those comics were great. the
3-parter which you're referring to was in the "Bartman"comic, and it
was excellent - especially the way they parodied comic-book characters
from Marvel, DC and Image. And "The Simpsons" comics were great too -
especially the story of 'The Amazing, Colossal Homer", and the one
about the baseball cards and the sick faculty. If only those writers
had a go at writing for the TV series.
Doc Quack
Solon Boomer-Jenks <So...@lasal.net> wrote:
>
>
>Ondre Lombard wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Andy Langager wrote:
>> >
>> > First of all, yes it is possible to re-attacht an arm. It might not be 100%
>> > functional, but you can put that sucker back on.
>> > Second, it's a cartoon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Please tell me you aren't narrow-minded enough to believe nothing
>> that is animated can be taken seriously. Time and time again we've been shown
>> that the characters in the Simpsons can be three-dimensional, so it's quite
>> obvious that just because "it's a cartoon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" doesn't
>> mean it has to act like every other damned cartoon that ever graced the
>> Saturday morning airwaves. Gags like this make the series more and more
>> shallow, and less and less interesting.
>>
>> There used to be something of a difference between Itchy & Scratchy
>> and the actual show. I'm starting to no longer see the difference.
>>
>> Ondre
>
>Yes, there is a huge difference. Itche and Steche may kill each other like iteits,
>but the people on the actual show rarely get killed. Two twins were seperated with a
>rope in "Marge vs. The Monorail" Homer bounced down a cliff in "Bart The Daredevil".
>Cartoons are "just a bunch of hilarious stuff you know, like
>people getting hurt and stuff, stuff like that."
>
>Solon
Yeah, and we can have them learn karate Karokie, wear spandex, and turn into a
dorky group that powers up a big robotic samurai fighter that swings a sword all
day, beating evil-doers without hurting them.
Maybe they could all grow turtle shells?
You know, the Classics.
Then, in a few years, they could turn into yellow dinosaurs and start singing
simple songs that drive anyone over the age of three into a rage.
Who says that would cheapen the program?
(besides me?)
Doc
S1.2 ABE@%* + LIS +++ MRG+++ MAG+++ BAR++ n++ M64
Scott
Doc Quack wrote:
> I notice that someone has said that the arm could be re-attached. IF the
> person received medical attention very fast and didn't bleed to death first (a
> limb cut off like that would have major blood vessels pumping large amounts of
> blood out, immediately!)
I do not believe that in the event of a severed limb that blood
continues flowing, atleast not immediately (unless, perhaps, it was a
major artery). I think that the vessels contract and stop the flow of
blood (for a while, anyway). Eventually, though, the muscles that had
contracted to stop the flow of blood relax and the victim would, indeed,
bleed to death.
There was a case where some farm kid had both of his arms ripped off in
a tractor accident. He was able to get back into his house and dial the
emergency number (holding a pen in his mouth, I presume). The ambulance
arrived in sufficient time to save the limbs and have them reattached.
Whether he regained full use, I cannot answer.
Scott
Doc Quack
Scott <*abwe...@idt.net> wrote:
>Doc Quack wrote:
>
>> I notice that someone has said that the arm could be re-attached. IF the
>> person received medical attention very fast and didn't bleed to death first (a
>> limb cut off like that would have major blood vessels pumping large amounts of
>> blood out, immediately!)
>
>I do not believe that in the event of a severed limb that blood
>continues flowing, atleast not immediately (unless, perhaps, it was a
>major artery). I think that the vessels contract and stop the flow of
>blood (for a while, anyway).
Sorry, but you're completely wrong. You can actually see the blood being pumped
out of the arteries by the heart, and there won't be any such vessel
contraction. You have to put a tourniquet, either pressure or cutoff, on the
limb immediately to stop the blood flow. (This is a good point to know for
first aid!) Then prevent the person from going into shock. With major injury,
shock can be as deadly as the injury. Remember the old boy scout saying: "If
the face is pale, raise the tail!...."
BTW, I'm speaking from actual experience here, learned the hard way in SE Asia.
> Eventually, though, the muscles that had
>contracted to stop the flow of blood relax and the victim would, indeed,
>bleed to death.
>
>There was a case where some farm kid had both of his arms ripped off in
>a tractor accident. He was able to get back into his house and dial the
>emergency number (holding a pen in his mouth, I presume). The ambulance
>arrived in sufficient time to save the limbs and have them reattached.
>Whether he regained full use, I cannot answer.
>
Held the bleeding back by applying pressure with his feet, I assume.
Just do me a favor, and don't attempt doing it yourself to prove a point.
I've done enough evil things in my life that I don't need any more to my credit.
Doc
>Scott
mad...@lconn.com
aw, cartoons don't have messages. they're just a series of funny things,
y'know, like people gettin' hurt and stuff...
Brewing Tea
:>>It was a shock the first time, but upon more viewing it became increasingly
:>>lame. It contributed nothing to the story, and could be chopped without any
:>>effect on the show. I think I've seen others that say the show would be
:>>improved by cutting the bit and I certainly understand their point.
It was funny, so if it was left out, the show would be effected by
becoming less funny. It contributed nothing to the story, but a lot
of the funny jokes don't! Should we leave all of *them* out, too?
:>Exactly. When re-shown in syndication, anyone who's ever seen the ep
:>will already know what to expect, so there goes whatever humour that
:>lame gag had in the first place.
So never watch an episode more than once, because you already know
what to expect, and it won't be funny, right?
Look, if you guys didn't like the joke, that's OK! We all have parts
we don't like. But don't try to "explain" why the joke was lame by
analyzing the heck out of it!
Just admit you didn't like it, and let's move on. There's no
accounting for taste, so stop trying.
Brewing Tea -- He's brisk, baby!
Remove the underscore "_" to reply via e-mail...
--------------------------------
Visit my newly updated web-page at:
http://www.eng.usf.edu/~brewingt
--------------------------------
David Sands
Just repeat to yourself, "It's just a show, I should really just relax."
Larry Ouderkirk
mad...@lconn.com wrote:
>
> aw, cartoons don't have messages. they're just a series of funny things,
> y'know, like people gettin' hurt and stuff...
Yeah, who cares? It was the only good part in one of the worst episodes
ever.
Andrew Gill
Doc Quack wrote in message <66ruia$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>I notice that someone has said that the arm could be re-attached. IF the
>person received medical attention very fast and didn't bleed to death first
(a
>limb cut off like that would have major blood vessels pumping large amounts
of
nerves
>would likely be shredded, making the limb useless even if attached.
Likely
>have some surface feeling, but the ability to control the hand would never
>return. (but there have been some miracles.)
IIRC, I saw something in SciAm about reconnecting one's spine. Nerves in
one's arm couldn't be that tough.
---------------------------------------------------------
The official "Write My Signature" contest email address:|
----> fruadman_tru...@juno.com |
The prize? I'll use the best Sig! |
-----------------------------------Temporary Sig Follows:
IIRC, it was also a MOUSE's spine, but it COULD be done. Yep. SciAm 1/97
p.28.
VoVat
On Sat, 13 Dec 1997 22:29:48 -0500, the one known as Andrew Gill
<fruadman_tru...@juno.com> wrote thusly:
>
>Doc Quack wrote in message <66ruia$6...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>>
>>I notice that someone has said that the arm could be re-attached. IF
the
>>person received medical attention very fast and didn't bleed to death
first
>(a
>>limb cut off like that would have major blood vessels pumping large
amounts
>of
>>blood out, immediately!), but piano wire is not sharp, just thin and
the
>nerves
>>would likely be shredded, making the limb useless even if attached.
>Likely
>>have some surface feeling, but the ability to control the hand would
never
>>return. (but there have been some miracles.)
>
>IIRC, I saw something in SciAm about reconnecting one's spine. Nerves
in
>one's arm couldn't be that tough.
Yes, but I don't think Kirk could afford the operation. He is apparently
out of work.
Eric Lin
mad...@lconn.com wrote:
>aw, cartoons don't have messages. they're just a series of funny things,
>y'know, like people gettin' hurt and stuff...
"Cartoons don't have to be 100% realistic."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Eric Lin
squ...@interaccess.com
University of Illinois College of Medicine Class of 2001
http://homepage.interaccess.com/~squint
"Me fail English? That's un-possible!" Ralph Wiggum in the Simpsons
The Sensation of Loudness
I can't understand how my friends and I can increasly enjoy each new episode
while I come here and each one is torn to shreds.
One reason I enjoyed the Kirk arm gag was that it was so out of character for
the show. Not only did I not expect it to happen, but the "no blood" and glazed
ham look of his arm stump are just silly and obviously tongue in cheek.
The "just silly" aspect can't be done on any other show. The skill in which
each "just silly" gag is minimalized, the more the show contradicts itself and
every blathering piece of crap on TV. Reductivism is the wave of the future, my
friends. But I digress. I'm not going to make an art historical critique just
yet.
My only dissapointment was that Kirk had the arm reattached at the end of the
show. It'll be a dream come true if by the last episode of the series, every
person in Springfield will be a crippled mutant, acting completely normal (i.e.
their obvious physical state not affecting the mental one).
I don't think the writers have stopped caring, I think you who don't like the
show anymore just don't appreciate what the writers are doing in concept.
Jason Barrera
Ondre Lombard wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 1997, Andy Langager wrote:
> >
> > First of all, yes it is possible to re-attacht an arm. It might not be 100%
> > functional, but you can put that sucker back on.
> > Second, it's a cartoon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Please tell me you aren't narrow-minded enough to believe nothing
> that is animated can be taken seriously. Time and time again we've been shown
> that the characters in the Simpsons can be three-dimensional, so it's quite
> obvious that just because "it's a cartoon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" doesn't
> mean it has to act like every other damned cartoon that ever graced the
> Saturday morning airwaves. Gags like this make the series more and more
> shallow, and less and less interesting.
>
> There used to be something of a difference between Itchy & Scratchy
> and the actual show. I'm starting to no longer see the difference.
>
> Ondre
I'm reminded of the episode where Lisa says that "Itchy and Scratchy is just a
cartoon, it doesn't have to be perfect!" and then Homer, who is at the same time
sitting on the couch, walks past the window... hehe