So It's Come To This: A Simpsons Clip Show
Karl Wagenfuehr
be compared to the bottom of the list of previous episodes. It was
as if scabs took over, what migth happen if The Simpsons got sold to
another network. This was a living example of what would happen if
The Simpsons were written like any other sitcom. This was just bad.
Uninspired. Off. The only good bits were from other episodes.
The attitude of "well, it's come to this" was plainly apparent in
the slapped together nature of the "plot", the slapping on of "jokes"
which were unispired and mostly just rehashes of old bits. Most of
the clips didn't even work, because they falied to have the same
impact outside the context of their proper episode. The rabbit
flinging scene didn't work, Homer falling down the gorge lacked
the same impact it had within the original episode (even with --
or maybe because of -- the extra footage). Even the Itchy and
Scratchy seemed tacked on! They're just not trying.
The only good thing out of this episode was the "D'oh" montage.
I sincerely hope that this is not any kind of harbinger of things
to come... I know that The Simpsons can't last forever, but I was
hoping for a few more good years out of 'em.
I wish they'd ended it with a big huge "APRIL FOOL!" and showed the
real episode for tonight...
--
' ", *
Karl Wagenfuehr , "Weisst du, wieviel Sternlein stehen an dem
wage...@huey.udel.edu , ' blauen Himmelszelt?" --Deutsches Volkslied
'
Scott D McGinnis
>The attitude of "well, it's come to this" was plainly apparent in
>the slapped together nature of the "plot", the slapping on of "jokes"
>which were unispired and mostly just rehashes of old bits. Most of
>the clips didn't even work, because they falied to have the same
>impact outside the context of their proper episode. The rabbit
>flinging scene didn't work, Homer falling down the gorge lacked
>the same impact it had within the original episode (even with --
>or maybe because of -- the extra footage). Even the Itchy and
>Scratchy seemed tacked on! They're just not trying.
wanted it to look like. I mean we are so fond of searching for
references in each episode ad nauseum, that maybe we are missing
the most blatant one of all. In fact there are at least two, if
not more lines in the show eluding to the fact that the writers
know that this format sucks.
Just the mere fact that the introduced Itchy and Scratchy clip
is followed by Grampa saying "what does that have to do with
anything" and Barts *lamely* making some excuse should indicate
the writers are spoofing network TV, writers and the show itself.
Incidently I seem to recall this exact format, ie. star gets
sick, everyone thinks he may die, rehash in the ER waiting room
about all the fun times ect., in shows like Happy Days, Brady
Bunch reunions ect.
Scott
Chris Best
> real episode for tonight...
----------
WHAT??? You turned off the TV too soon! The second one was GREAT!!
james lowe 9208 U
>This was absolutely the worst episode ever. It isn't even worthy to
>be compared to the bottom of the list of previous episodes. It was
>
Come on, it wasn't that bad.
What about Monty Burns saying "I demand the man die with dignity...he's
costing my health plan $5000 a day!"
Or...The opening scene with the Paegan Simpsons (Who are the fools now!)
Jim
Daniel Cossack
>The only good thing out of this episode was the "D'oh" montage.
I wouldn't say that. I think the funniest part of the show was
the line, "God bless the pagans".
>I sincerely hope that this is not any kind of harbinger of things
>to come... I know that The Simpsons can't last forever, but I was
>hoping for a few more good years out of 'em.
I hope it is. How "Gronig" it is to make a parody out of the inevitable
sitcom retrospective. His imagination never ends.
--
===========================================================================
Daniel Cossack | E-mail: da...@procom.com
Procom Technology, Inc. | : 71333...@compuserve.com
===========================================================================
Eric J. Holtman
show), the Cuckoo's Nest, the Doooh collection, and April Fools
jokes). Hmm, I guess you missed those. Sorry. Recue the tape
>Scratchy seemed tacked on! They're just not trying.
No, you're just humor impaired.
>
>The only good thing out of this episode was the "D'oh" montage.
whoops, gues you did recue the tape for that.
>
>I sincerely hope that this is not any kind of harbinger of things
>to come... I know that The Simpsons can't last forever, but I was
>hoping for a few more good years out of 'em.
>
>I wish they'd ended it with a big huge "APRIL FOOL!" and showed the
>real episode for tonight...
IMHO, they knew **exactly** what they were doing, knew it was tacky,
and did it very well. Let me guess, you don't like MST3K either,
do you??
Gary Goldberg
obvious they were lampooning clip shows in general, and I found it
just as good as other, normal episodes. To me, this 'clip show'
shows that they are continuing to be offbeat and fresh. - Gary
--
- Gary Goldberg o...@access.digex.com Bowie, MD KA3ZYW
Karl Wagenfuehr
> Has it occurred to anyone that this exactly what the producers
>wanted it to look like. I mean we are so fond of searching for
>references in each episode ad nauseum, that maybe we are missing
>the most blatant one of all. In fact there are at least two, if
>not more lines in the show eluding to the fact that the writers
>know that this format sucks.
Similar idea expressed by at least:
<1pho3r$f...@anaxagoras.ils.nwu.edu> (Don)
brett@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE (brett schultz)
da...@procom.com (Daniel Cossack)
My response, directed at none of the above specifically:
Just because it is possible that the show can be viewed as an attempted
parody of something still doesn't make it good. A bad show is still
a bad show, even if they were trying to parody something. You don't
need a whole show to explore the idea "Clip shows suck" -- this can be
handled in 5 minutes or less, point is taken, beast is dead, fluff gets
up your nose.
I disagree with those who claim that this bad show shows only more
strongly how brilliant the mythical "Matt Groening" is; would a half
hour test pattern also be some brilliant statement on society?
We all know clip shows suck; we've seen more than enough of them that
we don't need the brilliant "Matt Groening" to enlighten us on this
fact, and certainly not by a whole wasted half-hour episode.
So I reject that argument out of hand.
As to the point that the episode had its original and clever bits
aside from the clips, here too I disagree.
I was unaware that this was the clip-show until after the first
commercial break. But even before then I was already wondering what
was up, because everything seemed so off, so blatant, so slopped
together. When I saw that this was the clip show, I let out a groan
as understanding came -- this is that clip show, and obviously they
don't really care about it, as even the production title shows.
So the question is, why did they do it? It seems they weren't too
thrilled about it, and it is certainly clear they didn't lavish too much
love on it.
I get the feeling that they were forced to do it. Some kind of contract
stipulations, or it'll never get sold into syndication without a clip-show,
or something like that. So they just slopped something together, made
a few snide comments about clip-shows in general, delivered it, and
(hopefully) got back to doing bigger and better things.
I'm disappointed that they sold out and made a lame clip-show like all
lame sitcoms do (even if they did try to seem like they were hip to
it and managed to fool many into thinking that this was some brilliant
parody), but then I'm sure that many of the production crew are
disappointed they had to make a lame clip-show. That's life I guess,
you do the crappy stuff you have to do, and get on with it. I'm sure
Marge would have something appropriate to say here.
Because of this self-referential remark, this is actually only a clever
parody of a response-post, which in itself is only a parody of a flame.
Karl Wagenfuehr
>
>I hope it is. How "Gronig" it is to make a parody out of the inevitable
>sitcom retrospective. His imagination never ends.
No, no; this was a REFERENCE to all other sitcoms that have ever done
a clip show, and as such, is of course the most original thing ol'
Matt has ever done!
Mike Weber
>the slapped together nature of the "plot", the slapping on of "jokes"
>which were unispired and mostly just rehashes of old bits. Most of
>the clips didn't even work, because they falied to have the same
>impact outside the context of their proper episode. The rabbit
>flinging scene didn't work, Homer falling down the gorge lacked
>the same impact it had within the original episode (even with --
>or maybe because of -- the extra footage). Even the Itchy and
>Scratchy seemed tacked on! They're just not trying.
But didnt you get it, man? It was SUPPOSED to be that way.
It was an obvious satire on the way sitcoms does the "reminising"(sp?)
eps. It was most obvious when Bart brought up the superfluous
Itchy and Scratchy show bit.
>The only good thing out of this episode was the "D'oh" montage.
How about the scene TRM (that reminded me) of The Day After, when the
atom bombs hit the city...was it a true reference to The Day After?
>I wish they'd ended it with a big huge "APRIL FOOL!" and showed the
>real episode for tonight...
They didnt need to!
"Yeah, that would make me laugh..."
-Ubiqutous
Andrew Ross, UO Law School
I get the feeling there are a few OFF apologists who just think the makers
of the show can do no wrong, and are acting like personal defense attorneys
for the network decisionmaker. All this BS about when the Simpsons hits a
lame note like it did here then it means they're parodying bad television
and its really clever and funny after all---that's just begging the question.
It makes me think of the old-time Freudian analysts who dreamed up so-called
universal neuroses in which they proved it was universal because if you had the
symptoms you had it, and if you didn't have the symptoms you were REPRESSING
them and you still had it. There was just no way no to have it and be able to
prove it.
Same here. When OFF is good, no problem. When it's bad, you say it's still good because it's mocking itself. Wrong. If we ain't laughing, it aint funny
and it aint good. I don't care what they're mocking. If it ain't funny they
aint mocking it in the right way. So. There.
Andrew
This is inspiring me to want to learn more about our founding fathers..To the
library!
John R. Donald
>In article <1993Apr2.0...@udel.edu> wage...@huey.udel.edu (Karl Wagenfuehr) writes:
>>The attitude of "well, it's come to this" was plainly apparent in
>>the slapped together nature of the "plot", the slapping on of "jokes"
>But didnt you get it, man? It was SUPPOSED to be that way.
>It was an obvious satire on the way sitcoms does the "reminising"(sp?)
>eps. It was most obvious when Bart brought up the superfluous
>Itchy and Scratchy show bit.
Yeah, it was supposed to be that way, but it was still lame. There are
still some better things to satarize out there than this - and make an
entire episode out of this one idea was just too much. There is a fine line
between satire and emulation, which I think was crossed in this episode.
The worst part was the subversion of Burns' character. Burns would not
know who Homer is, let alone show up in his hospital room. Oh, was that
satire?
-jd
--
"Cover for me!" - Homer Simpson
Rolf Wilson
>The worst part was the subversion of Burns' character. Burns would not
>know who Homer is, let alone show up in his hospital room. Oh, was that
>satire?
He showed up because Homer was costing the medical plan $5000/day
(sounds like the power plant is self-insured). All this talk of money
seems to have jarred loose one memory of Homer (Homer trying to borrow
money for his dog's operation), but the major "things this man has put
me through" like thwarting Burns' run for governor are still lost
somewhere in the back of Monty's brain.
--
Rolf Wilson Illinois State Geological Survey ro...@geoserv.isgs.uiuc.edu
Jawara
I completely concur with Gary and others who liked the episode. The
creators of The Simpsons aren't afraid to laugh at anybody. They've
proven to be good sports when it comes to laughing at themselves
but I think part of the mixed reviews on this show may derive from
the fact that they were laughing at US--the fans--this time.
I think that running it on April Fool's Day and calling it "The
Clip Show" should have been fair warning to anyone watching. As for
me, I didn't realize it was a "clip" episode until the first one
ran.
BTW, I thought Dr. Hibbard's tasteless April Fool's joke was funny.
*****************************************************************
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance!"
-- the last words of Col. John Sedgewick
*****************************************************************
Ron Drake
Stephen Wayne Miller
>My response, directed at none of the above specifically:
>Just because it is possible that the show can be viewed as an attempted
>parody of something still doesn't make it good.
No, but it doesn't make it bad, either.
>You don't
>need a whole show to explore the idea "Clip shows suck" -- this can be
>handled in 5 minutes or less, point is taken, beast is dead, fluff gets
>up your nose.
It can be. Or you can do it the way they did. Point?
>I disagree with those who claim that this bad show shows only more
>strongly how brilliant the mythical "Matt Groening" is; would a half
>hour test pattern also be some brilliant statement on society?
No, but that wasn't a half-hour test pattern. Consider: clips didn't even
start until the second act, and they still managed to work in all the Monty
Burns stuff, the Cuckoo's Nest stuff, the metahumor, and so on.
>We all know clip shows suck; we've seen more than enough of them that
>we don't need the brilliant "Matt Groening" to enlighten us on this
>fact, and certainly not by a whole wasted half-hour episode.
>So I reject that argument out of hand.
You probably don't "need the brilliant 'Matt Groening'" (why the quotes?)
to enlighten you about lots of stuff that gets on the show and which you
don't seem to complain about. So?
>As to the point that the episode had its original and clever bits
>aside from the clips, here too I disagree.
What. You had your eyes closed when there weren't clips?
>I was unaware that this was the clip-show until after the first
>commercial break.
There ya go.
>But even before then I was already wondering what
>was up, because everything seemed so off, so blatant, so slopped
>together.
Retroactive dissapointment, I'd wager.
>So the question is, why did they do it? It seems they weren't too
>thrilled about it, and it is certainly clear they didn't lavish too much
>love on it.
Or at least that's the way you perceive it.
>I get the feeling that they were forced to do it. Some kind of contract
>stipulations, or it'll never get sold into syndication without a clip-show,
>or something like that.'
What are you *talking* about??
>Because of this self-referential remark, this is actually only a clever
>parody of a response-post, which in itself is only a parody of a flame.
Oh ho ho. How very witty. Gosh, I guess you sent us all packing. NOT.
--
__ | ata...@cats.ucsc.edu | "Oh no! Toonces, look out! AIIIEEEE!" --SNL
(_ | Delphi: ATARIO | "This is only an exhibition. This is not a
__)teve | "Happy happy! | competition. So please . . . no wagering."
| Joy joy!" --R & S | --Late Night with David Letterman