Heeeeeeere we go. (Debate with en_mog.)
Martin Doyle
If some neutral 3rd party could be the moderator, that would be
fabulous. However, I doubt that'll happen.
Anyhoo....here we go.
>I would like to respond specifically to the sentence "However, there are times (especially
>recently) when the show has not been up to it's usual par." You say that as if it is a
>statement of fact. I think ATS STILL misunderstands my position. I DO acknowledge a moderate
>decrease in quality. Key word being "moderate". But I do not believe this decrease in
>quality is as extreme as you guys make it out to be. The general opinion is that the show is
>horrible now, the writers should be fired, Scully is a dumbass who has ruined the show, and
>other similar things. I believe and have always stated that this is very unfair, that the
>show is still pretty darn good, that there are many quality episodes being produced.
Ok then. Your position: You think the show has decreased somewhat in
quality, although not to the extent made out here, and that there are
still quality episodes being produced.
Going on that assumption, my position is that the show decreased
tremendously over the past few seasons, and I would deem very few shows
'watchable'.
However, first, I will debate the points.
>In regards to the power trip issue, I still believe I am somewhat correct on that. People DO
>get a kick out of writing there supposedly witty, well-worded, bashing of the episode, Scully,
>and the writers. I acknowledge their right to post a negative review, but I severely disagree
>with many of them and I sense a feeling of superiority over the writers and producers when
>people write those "reviews". A response to this statement might be something like, "Just
>because people have negative reviews doesn't mean they feel superior." Well, I still maintain
>that the majority of people do not recognize the extensive, time-consuming effort that goes
>into every episode by literally hundreds of people and that the end result is still quite
>good.
Whether they recognize how time-consuming an episode is, I do not
beleive that posters get a power trip out of writing a bad review. Keep
in mind, they write good reviews too. Since this is a news-group, a
posting of printed information, people may be interested in what others
thought of a particular episode. As such, they may feel inclined to post
a review of their own. Whether or not someone posts "Best Episode" or
"Worst Episode" is irrelevent, as long as they have expressed their
opinion. A power trip could only arise if they were directly involved in
the outcome of the program. For example, if Mike Scully asked
specifically for an ats'ers opinion, they might get a power trip because
they personally were asked to evaluate the show. The review of the show
comes after said power trip. Therefore, a well-worded, witty review,
good or bad, is merely an exchange of ideas.
Point 2: You said that the ats'ers were annoyed with the mainstream
audience.
>I think that people are sorta annoyed with the pretty high ratings that The Simpsons is
>getting now. I don't know if annoyed is the right word, there's probably a more accurate
>one. But, anyways, people probably feel that a lot of people are watching The Simpsons now at
>a time when it is not in it's fullest prime and they missed out on the earlier, admittedly
>better seasons. The mainstream theory probably should also deal with the inclusion of more
>"low brow" physical jokes that have appeared in recent episodes. I disagree with people who
>imply that that's all recent episodes are, and that all that the writers have been doing
>latetly is "resorting" to this. I contend that recent episodes, although a little different,
>often contain a refreshing mix of both smart, inside jokes and simple sight gags, which can be
>extremely funny at times. When I make statements like the last sentence, people respond by
>saying something like all I care about is the jokes and that is just not true.
I think the majority of people either don't know, or don't care what the
ratings of the Simpsons are. When I first started watching the show, I
thought it was funny, well-worded, with interesting characters, etc... I
had no idea what ratings were at that time. As the seasons wore on, I
gradually became less interested in the show, and ratings had nothing to
do with it. At no time was I aware of any ratings the simpsons received.
I was quite aware that it was a popular show. Even when I first started
watching it, all my friends were too. To me, the simpsons was always
popular. Whether or not this was indicated by high ratings didn't
matter.
The fact that you say it has high ratings doesn't really tell me
anything. Are the ratings higher now then they were in season 1? Season
4? Season 6? Ratings shouldn't decide what shows should be watched. Ally
McBeal or ER may have super-high ratings, but that doesn't mean I'm
going to watch them. Duckman may have been cancelled 3 seasons ago, but
I'll still watch a rerun whenever I can.
The point is, if people determine which shows to watch by how high the
ratings are, then they truly aren't fans of the show. I don't think
higher ratings and increased popularity of the show plays a big part in
the negativity of the group.
>
Point 3: People tend to agree with the overall feeling of the group.
Well, you've kinda changed the point into : The simpsons isn't just
low-brow humour.
Either you've conceded, ignored, or disagreed with the orignial point,
but if you want to restate it again, that's fine.
I'll call this, Point 3B: The Simspsons isn't just low-brow humour.
>I strongly disagree with Homer now being just a "sight gag and fodder for low brow jokes."
>Again, read my earlier rebuttal about the show not being just low brow nowadays. Another
>reason why I believe you think of Homer this way now, is because that is what you almost wish
>to see, or more accurately, those are the jokes that your mind retains, the low brow ones
>involving Homer. Homer, in nearly every recent episode, says lines which just aren't low brow
>stupid, but are really funny-- funny in a sense that the typical junior high kid wouldn't
>quite catch on to.
Fair enough, Homer can say some genuinely funny things that are above
scratching his ass and screeching hysterically.
However, the reason all those low-brow jokes tend to stick out, is
because there are more of them. I admit, there are some classy,
high-brow stuff that would make the writers of Frasier jealous, but it
is the overall impression of the episode that leads to a bad review.
If Homer tends to scream a lot during the episode, saying nonsensical
words and acting like a jerk, we would tend to remember that. If Homer
were to act like an idiot, but do so in a cleverly written manner, we
would remember that.
Overall, I would argue that the low-brow jokes are far more noticeable
now then they used to be, while the high-brow jokes are harder to spot.
It is this that can lead to generalizations of "Jerk-Ass" Homer or
"Wacky" Homer.
<snip High-brow jokes from later seasons>
<snip on bashing and infighting in ng's>
Point 4: People cherish the past and are unwilling to accept changes.
>> The fact that we don't like the
>> changes the show is taking doesn't mean we can't appreciate changes.
>Sort of a good point, but I do see over aggressive harsh bashing of episodes which do contain
>smart, witty dialogue that people just ignore. Examples? Read my examples above or simply go
>to the scripts at snpp.com of season 11. I spent about a half hour break in between making
>these rebuttals because the scripts were so funny!
Again, point has been changed. Feel free to restate the original point.
Here, you say that people ignore the witty dialogue. I would like to
point out that if a show contains witty dialogue, it is very easy to
find. However, if it is hidden in between low-brow jokes, our interest
may not be as high, or our willingness to look may not be as high
either.
As I said in 3B, the overall episode is what sticks in people's minds.
If it contains witty dialogue, yet contains more scenes the people find
annoying, they will remember the prevaling emotions they had while
watching the episode.
Point 5: People don't 'get' the joke.
>> 5. The 5th point is that people don't 'get' the joke. I have seen
>> various posts in which regular ats'ers ask others to explain various
>> references, what 'such and such' meant, etc... ("What's the
>> quote??"--Stefano Buatti, "which episode is this"--Joey Joe Joe Junior
>> Shabadoo, and others....I don't really feel like looking right now.)
>> Even if they don't 'get' the joke, the Simpsons shouldn't have to appeal
>> to the intellectual elite. The genius of the show was that anyone could
>> watch it and laugh at it. There was low-brow humour, high-brow humour,
>> sight-gags, literary references, subtle jokes, etc... To say that
>> someone doesn't 'get' the joke may be true, but for someone to not 'get'
>> all the jokes indicates a serious lack of writing quality.
>You say "There was..... ". I say "There still is..." I don't wanna sound repetitive, but
>there still is low-brow humor, high brow humor, sight gags, literary referances, and subtle
>jokes. Have I acknowledged I minor decrease in the overall funniness of season 11? Yes. But
>I have always maintained that it is a minor or moderate decrease in quality and not the
>horrendouslly severe drop that many people state about recent seasons.
Again, point has been changed. Restate.
Point 6: People don't laugh at low-brow jokes.
<snip: I said that the low-brow jokes tended to dominate>
>I agree somewhat. There has been a slight increase in "low-brow" jokes, but not to the extent
>that you and others contend. I'm sorry but "I believe they're for scratching your ass."
>really, really worked for me. It wasn't simply the words. It was the WAY he said it and his
>TONE of voice and ACCENT which made that line incredible funny, for me at least. So, yes,
>there are a few more low brow jokes. No I do not believe there has been a trend where they
>dominate the show. Yes, many of them do work for me. You cannot just look at the words. It
>is a combination of the words and how the character says them.
Ok. My point here is that the level of low-brow jokes has significantly
increased. Which is why people would lable Homer as "Jerk-Ass" or
"wacky" or whatnot.
However, I feel I've pointed this out enough throughout the post.
I propose we ignore point 7, about the show being American based.
<snip point 7>
If you don't want to, feel free to restate it.
>
>I would genuinely like to as well. I hope I answered some of your questions and brought up a
>few points. It is generally not the decline of the show that I disagree with, it is the
>EXTENT of the decline that I take issue with. I do not believe it is falling down the tubes
>like the general opinion here proclaims it to be.
Ok. I am tired, so I'm gonna end here.
We can't really argue the extent of how far the show has fallen, since
we both agree it has. That's like arguing how many grains of sand make a
sand pile.
7?
No, it's a rhetorical question...
Anyhoo...I tend to beleive it is falling down the tubes, and will post
reasons later. Right now, I'm gonna go to bread.
GREG
La Nostra Famiglia Favorita
martin certainly knocked down en_mog's key points.
martin attacked whatever strength en_mog's argument had and made them look
foolish. he also pointed out a contradiction madde by the opposition.
martin defended his view with reason and logic and made no mistakes in
contradiction
martin had great method by killing the main arguments made by en_mog
his manner was outstanding as he didn't resort to profanity (fuck, shit).
this was a clearly civilised debate
his matter was brilliant as he had many good points, most of them opinion,
but all of them logical and understandable.
and finally, his conclusion was convincing
even though i haven't been here long and i don't really know about this
en_mog war, i got a full, overall, and relevant summary
this is high-quality debating at its best.
but its not over yet
lets hear some rebuttal from en_mog and others
La Nostra Famiglia Favorita
"where's the beef"
en_mog
Martin Doyle wrote:
> Ok then. Your position: You think the show has decreased somewhat in
> quality, although not to the extent made out here, and that there are
> still quality episodes being produced.
>
> Going on that assumption, my position is that the show decreased
> tremendously over the past few seasons, and I would deem very few shows
> 'watchable'.
>
>
> However, first, I will debate the points.
>
> Whether they recognize how time-consuming an episode is, I do not
> beleive that posters get a power trip out of writing a bad review. Keep
> in mind, they write good reviews too. Since this is a news-group, a
> posting of printed information, people may be interested in what others
> thought of a particular episode. As such, they may feel inclined to post
> a review of their own. Whether or not someone posts "Best Episode" or
> "Worst Episode" is irrelevent, as long as they have expressed their
> opinion. A power trip could only arise if they were directly involved in
> the outcome of the program. For example, if Mike Scully asked
> specifically for an ats'ers opinion, they might get a power trip because
> they personally were asked to evaluate the show. The review of the show
> comes after said power trip. Therefore, a well-worded, witty review,
> good or bad, is merely an exchange of ideas.
I accept your viewpoint here, but I respectfully disagree. Sure, reviewers post reviews.... some
good....some bad. Most often though, these come right after an episode airs, when the viewer
probably missed a lot of stuff or maybe a particular scene really bothered them which caused them
to miss the point of maybe an entire act. Blah, I don't know if I'm wording this quite right, but
I believe that what really angers me is the ...*mog holds his tounge* sort of unintelligent
reviewers who storm in and say "That was the blurst episode. Boy that sucked royally! Fire that
Mike Scully dude! That Homer part, boy that didn't make sense! Why don't they end this series?
It's turned into shit" That is what greatly annoys me. Now, I am not saying that you or other
regulars post stuff like this. I just tend to get annoyed at unthoughtful posts like that,
although I shouldn't let those types get to me.
Now, this next part is probably not specifically a response to the power trip, but I don't know
where else to put it so here goes. Another minor thing that annoys me is that many people here
expect the episodes to wrap up tightly into a little ball at the end of the episode. I believe
that endings can still be very good when this does not happen: for example "Missionary Impossible",
"Pygmoelian", and "Alone Again Natura-diddly"--in which Ned stated he was "back". I found that
ending satisfying. It ended on a relatively positive note. Maude died, but life moves on and Ned
is "back". As for the other endings, abrupt and surprising is very good at times and things would
be boring if all episodes wrapped up into a tight little ball. I'm gonna stop talking about this
topic because it is not specifically a response to you. Heh On to the next point..
> I think the majority of people either don't know, or don't care what the
> ratings of the Simpsons are. When I first started watching the show, I
> thought it was funny, well-worded, with interesting characters, etc... I
> had no idea what ratings were at that time. As the seasons wore on, I
> gradually became less interested in the show, and ratings had nothing to
> do with it. At no time was I aware of any ratings the simpsons received.
> I was quite aware that it was a popular show. Even when I first started
> watching it, all my friends were too. To me, the simpsons was always
> popular. Whether or not this was indicated by high ratings didn't
> matter.
> The fact that you say it has high ratings doesn't really tell me
> anything. Are the ratings higher now then they were in season 1? Season
> 4? Season 6? Ratings shouldn't decide what shows should be watched. Ally
> McBeal or ER may have super-high ratings, but that doesn't mean I'm
> going to watch them. Duckman may have been cancelled 3 seasons ago, but
> I'll still watch a rerun whenever I can.
> The point is, if people determine which shows to watch by how high the
> ratings are, then they truly aren't fans of the show. I don't think
> higher ratings and increased popularity of the show plays a big part in
> the negativity of the group.
Yes. I suppose my argument about the perceived "mainstreamness" is a pretty weak argument. It was
never my intention to imply that people do or should base their viewing habits on ratings though.
I don't believe I said so. I think what I sorta meant was that the perception of tons of low brow
jokes led people to believe that the show has "sold out" and become mainstream. I think this is a
pretty big stretch. Maybe there are a couple more sight gags per episode. But, I don't think this
has made the show totally unwatchable as you said. I would like to see a few example of shows you
believe are totally unwatchable due to horrible writing or an abundance of low brow gags. I didn't
want our arguments to boil down to the level I am doing now by asking you to point out specific
episodes, whereby I would try and explain portions of the episode, but I believe many things can be
worked out by seriously digging into these episodes and literally talking about certain scenes or
acts or entire episodes which bother you.
> Fair enough, Homer can say some genuinely funny things that are above
> scratching his ass and screeching hysterically.
> However, the reason all those low-brow jokes tend to stick out, is
> because there are more of them. I admit, there are some classy,
> high-brow stuff that would make the writers of Frasier jealous, but it
> is the overall impression of the episode that leads to a bad review.
> If Homer tends to scream a lot during the episode, saying nonsensical
> words and acting like a jerk, we would tend to remember that.
Again, point out specific episodes where Homer screamed a lot and "acted like a jerk". And I will
try to explain/defend the episode. We really have to get down to the nitty gritty and dive into
these episodes so we can see where we really differ. I have never really found Homer to be a jerk
ass because well frankly, it never occurred to me before hearing about it on the internet. It
probably has a lot to do with my perception when I hear Homer talk. I'm not listening to only the
words or actions. I'm sorta just watching, layed back but still focused on hearing what he says,
listening to his tone of voice (which is often the funniest), and geez.....it's really hard to
describe in words how differently I view Homer... It's not that I'm totally layed back and not
paying attention...But when I hear Homer, I think I hear something totally different. I hear
sarcastic, smart overtones in his voice even when he is saying some of the stupidest, "jerky"
things. I don't really know if that sentence makes sense but that is as best as I can describe it
at this moment.
>
>
> Again, point has been changed. Feel free to restate the original point.
> Here, you say that people ignore the witty dialogue. I would like to
> point out that if a show contains witty dialogue, it is very easy to
> find. However, if it is hidden in between low-brow jokes, our interest
> may not be as high, or our willingness to look may not be as high
> either.
> As I said in 3B, the overall episode is what sticks in people's minds.
> If it contains witty dialogue, yet contains more scenes the people find
> annoying, they will remember the prevaling emotions they had while
> watching the episode.
It is hard to adequately rebutt this point. I think we really need to dive into the specifics of
each episode. I don't know where you want to start, season 10, or the beginning of season 11.. or
maybe even some from 9, but we really should start to have regular debates, maybe weekly, where
we take a look at a specific episode and we, or maybe the whole group, debates about the episode.
There is a lot of stuff I would like to say about each episode, and try to explain/defend certain
things in them. I'm not saying everyone has to agree with me, just that things need to be said
about each episode so that people may view them in a more positive light, possibly.
>
> Ok. My point here is that the level of low-brow jokes has significantly
> increased. Which is why people would lable Homer as "Jerk-Ass" or
> "wacky" or whatnot.
Again, we really need to get into specific episodes so that I may properly defend what is perceived
to be "Jerk-Ass", "wacky" Homer. But I don't know if I will be able to adequately do so because it
has a lot to do with how we fundamentally listen and hear and watch Homer. Apparently, we do so
very differently.
>
>
> I propose we ignore point 7, about the show being American based.
Well, we can discontinue discussing it, but it shouldn't be completely ignored. There are many
items in episodes that probably aren't completely understood by non-American audiences. But, I
agree, we should stop discussing this point.
>
> We can't really argue the extent of how far the show has fallen, since
> we both agree it has. That's like arguing how many grains of sand make a
> sand pile.
>
Actually, I believe that the extent of the decline can be argued since there is such a vast
difference between our viewpoints.
>
Ok, to make amends for remarks earlier about calling everybody stupid, I will make the following
statement-- not that it's likely to mean anything to you at all.. given my past with this group.
But, nevertheless, I do believe you are very intelligent. You have thoughtfully and reasonably
responded and posed many good arguments. There... that was hard to say.. and I feel a little
dirty... but Mog's not always a bad guy. Anyways, I would very much like in the coming days or
weeks to try and discuss the specifics of certain episodes that you or others believe to be
unwatchable or just really bad. I would like a chance to defend/discuss them and maybe perhaps
agree with you at times. But, in the course of these possible discussions, there is a fine line
between breaking things down and analyzing there every nano-meaning whereby things start becoming
less funny, and not paying attention at all. There is a middle ground where episodes can be
debated, discussing why certain things were good or bad, without going the unnecessary extra step
of losing one's perspective and focusing on little continuity errors and a couple low brow gags and
not seeing the episode from a relatively "normal" viewers eyes.
en_mog
Martin Doyle
>
> I accept your viewpoint here, but I respectfully disagree. Sure, reviewers post reviews.... some
> good....some bad. Most often though, these come right after an episode airs, when the viewer
> probably missed a lot of stuff or maybe a particular scene really bothered them which caused them
> to miss the point of maybe an entire act. Blah, I don't know if I'm wording this quite right, but
> I believe that what really angers me is the ...*mog holds his tounge* sort of unintelligent
> reviewers who storm in and say "That was the blurst episode. Boy that sucked royally! Fire that
> Mike Scully dude! That Homer part, boy that didn't make sense! Why don't they end this series?
> It's turned into shit" That is what greatly annoys me. Now, I am not saying that you or other
> regulars post stuff like this. I just tend to get annoyed at unthoughtful posts like that,
> although I shouldn't let those types get to me.
Ok, I can agree that those types of posts are annoying. However, there
seems to be no indication that they get a power trip from posting an
overly negative reply. Some people may be doing it to fit in. For
example, a newbie lurker who wishes to be accepted may post something
about how 'Mike Scully' sucks, but never show up again. I think it's
either that, or they're badly expressing frustration at the
disappointment of an episode, and looking for a particular scapegoat.
>
> Now, this next part is probably not specifically a response to the power trip, but I don't know
> where else to put it so here goes. Another minor thing that annoys me is that many people here
> expect the episodes to wrap up tightly into a little ball at the end of the episode. I believe
> that endings can still be very good when this does not happen: for example "Missionary Impossible",
> "Pygmoelian", and "Alone Again Natura-diddly"--in which Ned stated he was "back". I found that
> ending satisfying. It ended on a relatively positive note. Maude died, but life moves on and Ned
> is "back". As for the other endings, abrupt and surprising is very good at times and things would
> be boring if all episodes wrapped up into a tight little ball. I'm gonna stop talking about this
> topic because it is not specifically a response to you. Heh On to the next point..
Well, this doesn't really have anything to do with the debate, but I
would like to point out something. I don't think an ending has to end in
a tight little ball either, but I don't think it should be a 'cop-out'
ending. The example that immediately springs to mind is "Das Bus" where
they were eventually 'rescued' by, uh...Moe? I mean, the ending there
was ununspired and what I consider the 'easy way out'. Instead of
thinking of something clever, they tacked on a sort of "PS: Here's what
happened". But I digress....
> Yes. I suppose my argument about the perceived "mainstreamness" is a pretty weak argument. It was
> never my intention to imply that people do or should base their viewing habits on ratings though.
> I don't believe I said so. I think what I sorta meant was that the perception of tons of low brow
> jokes led people to believe that the show has "sold out" and become mainstream. I think this is a
> pretty big stretch. Maybe there are a couple more sight gags per episode. But, I don't think this
> has made the show totally unwatchable as you said. I would like to see a few example of shows you
> believe are totally unwatchable due to horrible writing or an abundance of low brow gags. I didn't
> want our arguments to boil down to the level I am doing now by asking you to point out specific
> episodes, whereby I would try and explain portions of the episode, but I believe many things can be
> worked out by seriously digging into these episodes and literally talking about certain scenes or
> acts or entire episodes which bother you.
I don't think that we should delve deeply into episodes. I beleive I
should be able to watch the show, and NOT have to read the script over
and over again to 'get' the joke. Even if I don't get all the jokes,
there should be an overwhelming number that I do get. For example, in
"Guess who's Coming to criticize dinner", I didn't really find it funny
at all. I've been rereading the script, and although it seems good on
paper, it didn't fly on screen. (IMHO) I found the jokes were a stretch,
or forced. The best jokes, I thought, were the word play for various
restaurants. (Pate Labelle, The Texas Cheescake Depository). Everything
else seemed to be a variation on the same joke. (Ie: "...and poison.
I'll stick in some poison.") The joke being he says what you expected
after you thought he wasn't going to say it. Overall, the episode left a
bad taste in my mouth. (As well, the Homer screaming jokes, (Ie:
"Unclean..." and "Getting my comeuppance") were very weak, and
reinforced the trend of Homer just being loud and obnoxious.
>
> Again, point out specific episodes where Homer screamed a lot and "acted like a jerk". And I will
> try to explain/defend the episode. We really have to get down to the nitty gritty and dive into
> these episodes so we can see where we really differ. I have never really found Homer to be a jerk
> ass because well frankly, it never occurred to me before hearing about it on the internet. It
> probably has a lot to do with my perception when I hear Homer talk. I'm not listening to only the
> words or actions. I'm sorta just watching, layed back but still focused on hearing what he says,
> listening to his tone of voice (which is often the funniest), and geez.....it's really hard to
> describe in words how differently I view Homer... It's not that I'm totally layed back and not
> paying attention...But when I hear Homer, I think I hear something totally different. I hear
> sarcastic, smart overtones in his voice even when he is saying some of the stupidest, "jerky"
> things. I don't really know if that sentence makes sense but that is as best as I can describe it
> at this moment.
The first episode that I noticed Homer 'screaming' more was the 'Mr.
Sparkle' episode. Specifically, when he first finds the mr. Sparkle box,
instead of making a witty comment, or tossing off a one-liner, he merely
mutters stupidly. (IMHO) "what...why....why am I on a Japanese box?
Wh....why....huh..." etc...
>
> It is hard to adequately rebutt this point. I think we really need to dive into the specifics of
> each episode. I don't know where you want to start, season 10, or the beginning of season 11.. or
> maybe even some from 9, but we really should start to have regular debates, maybe weekly, where
> we take a look at a specific episode and we, or maybe the whole group, debates about the episode.
> There is a lot of stuff I would like to say about each episode, and try to explain/defend certain
> things in them. I'm not saying everyone has to agree with me, just that things need to be said
> about each episode so that people may view them in a more positive light, possibly.
>
> Again, we really need to get into specific episodes so that I may properly defend what is perceived
> to be "Jerk-Ass", "wacky" Homer. But I don't know if I will be able to adequately do so because it
> has a lot to do with how we fundamentally listen and hear and watch Homer. Apparently, we do so
> very differently.
>
> >
> Well, we can discontinue discussing it, but it shouldn't be completely ignored. There are many
> items in episodes that probably aren't completely understood by non-American audiences. But, I
> agree, we should stop discussing this point.
>
Ok, it seems as if you'd rather debate specific episodes. That's fine
with me. I don't really know where to start, maybe if I picked an
episode in season 9, or 10 that I thought was a prime example of
everything 'wrong' with the Simpsons, and we can go from there.
GREG
Ostap Bender
>The first episode that I noticed Homer 'screaming' more was the 'Mr.
>Sparkle' episode. Specifically, when he first finds the mr. Sparkle box,
>instead of making a witty comment, or tossing off a one-liner, he merely
>mutters stupidly. (IMHO) "what...why....why am I on a Japanese box?
>Wh....why....huh..." etc...
Now, come on! This is not only appropriate, that's very Homer. Hell,
it'd almost anyone's natural reaction (not mumbling specifically, but some
kind of shocked response). If he made a witty comment - now that would look
a bit strange.
Martin Doyle
Ostap Bender wrote:
>
> Martin Doyle <mart...@home.com> wrote in <39087720...@home.com>:
>
> >The first episode that I noticed Homer 'screaming' more was the 'Mr.
> >Sparkle' episode. Specifically, when he first finds the mr. Sparkle box,
> >instead of making a witty comment, or tossing off a one-liner, he merely
> >mutters stupidly. (IMHO) "what...why....why am I on a Japanese box?
> >Wh....why....huh..." etc...
>
> Now, come on! This is not only appropriate, that's very Homer. Hell,
> it'd almost anyone's natural reaction (not mumbling specifically, but some
> kind of shocked response). If he made a witty comment - now that would look
> a bit strange.
I disagree. The fact that I recognized it as being odd, indicated to me
that something was amiss. I don't think you'd catch him doing anything
like that in season 4,5 or 6.
GREG
Adam W. Long
>>that the majority of people do not recognize the extensive, time-consuming
>effort that goes
>>into every episode by literally hundreds of people and that the end result
>is still quite
>>good.
>Whether they recognize how time-consuming an episode is, I do not
>beleive that posters get a power trip out of writing a bad review.
I think most people do realize how time-consuming it is, and consider it a
shame that so much time and effort was put into writing what they consider a
bad gag, scene, episode, etc. Whenever I see a gag that doesn't particularly
appeal to me, I think "Wow, that's a shame that it took a writer to think of
it, the voice actor(s) to come down to the studio and record it, and a team of
animators to bring it to life, just to make me cringe." I guess it just
depends on the style and skill level of the writer. I don't doubt that all the
writers work very hard to write an episode they're proud of, I'm certain every
writer since Season 1 has done that. But they have different styles. I'm sure
the same amount of time went into writing "Lisa's Substitute" as it did for
"Saddlesore Galactica," but a difference of writing style makes them very
different from each other. Vitti was more of an emotional writer, so he
focused on those aspects, whereas Long focused more on the gags and teasing the
naysayers. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would rather
watch "Saddlesore..." than "Lisa's Substitute" because they'd rather hear a
funny story than an emotional one.
--------------------
Adam Long
"I don't get it - the box said 'shredded wheat'!"
en_mog
Martin Doyle wrote:
> Well, this doesn't really have anything to do with the debate, but I
> would like to point out something. I don't think an ending has to end in
> a tight little ball either, but I don't think it should be a 'cop-out'
> ending. The example that immediately springs to mind is "Das Bus" where
> they were eventually 'rescued' by, uh...Moe? I mean, the ending there
> was ununspired and what I consider the 'easy way out'. Instead of
> thinking of something clever, they tacked on a sort of "PS: Here's what
> happened". But I digress....
You missed the entire point of the joke. It is very, very clever. How can you not see that? Mog does
his best James Earl Jones impression "And they all were eventually rescued by.. oh let's say Moe" . Do
you not see what they were trying to do with that line? Do you seriously think they were lazy? It is
a very clever, self mocking, perfect ending.
>
>
> I don't think that we should delve deeply into episodes. I beleive I
> should be able to watch the show, and NOT have to read the script over
> and over again to 'get' the joke.
That is not what I am trying to say. I'm not trying to brag here but I really do get most or nearly all
of the jokes or clever dialogue or simple gags or whatever you wanna call them. I was trying to get
people who may have missed things due to some reason or other to take a second look at the scripts. But
as we see from the Moe ending and later how I will describe the Mr Sparkle scene, some people I guess
will never truly get why the writers did something. Again, I don't mean to brag, but for the majority of
the time I do "get" what is really funny or clever about a particular scene.
> Even if I don't get all the jokes,
> there should be an overwhelming number that I do get.
Yes, there should be. There SHOULD be. Meaning, they exist but you really should get them. Ok, I was a
little mean there. But, dude, I am getting the impression that although you do get some or most of the
stuff on The Simpsons, there are many things that you miss out on. This has basically been my opinion of
ATS'ers that there are many things they do not "get" and that they do miss a lot of stuff. Your
rebuttals in this particular post have only reaffirmed this belief and have strengthened point number 5
in the seven fold theory.
> The joke being he says what you expected
> after you thought he wasn't going to say it. Overall, the episode left a
> bad taste in my mouth.
That last sentence of yours, I find to be a delicious pun and is very funny. :-)
>
> The first episode that I noticed Homer 'screaming' more was the 'Mr.
> Sparkle' episode. Specifically, when he first finds the mr. Sparkle box,
> instead of making a witty comment, or tossing off a one-liner, he merely
> mutters stupidly. (IMHO) "what...why....why am I on a Japanese box?
> Wh....why....huh..." etc...
>
I agree with Ostap Bender, very funny and very appropriate. I mean, Homer saw his face on a Japanese
box! There's nothing else to do but mumble in surprise and amazement. I think it's really cute and
funny when he does that and it fits right in with the episode. By not "getting" the Moe ending and
Homer's Mr Sparkle mumbling, you are reiterating point number 5 that people frankly do not "get" it
sometimes. And if you (who I think are very smart) does not get a few things, imagine how much the
majority of posters do not get. I am not trying to act like I know everything here. You'll probably
respond by saying that you get it but you just don't think it is funny, well all I have to say is that
both situations were very appropriate, very clever, and very funny. Yes, sometimes mumbling can be
clever.
Another moment that you may disagree with that I think Homer is cute and funny in is when he sorta
mumbles and asks Lisa "Lisa, where's Christmas, where's Christmas?" after they discover the tree and
presents are gone." I just find that really funny and very appropriate for the situation rather than
some sort of forced, witty remark.
>
> Ok, it seems as if you'd rather debate specific episodes. That's fine
> with me. I don't really know where to start, maybe if I picked an
> episode in season 9, or 10 that I thought was a prime example of
> everything 'wrong' with the Simpsons, and we can go from there.
>
>
Boy, I dunno anymore. I don't know if I could mentally handle trying to explain hundreds of situations
like how Homer's mumbling can be comedy gold sometimes or the clever, abrupt Moe ending. I may have
over-estimated you a bit, but I still think you are smart and it is good that we can engage in relatively
calm debates.
However, I think the overall impression I get from this post is that point number 5 (people not "getting"
certain scenes and why they are funny) from the seven fold theory was validated. Try not to respond
angerly to this. I am just saying what I truly believe from talking with and having discussions with
many Simpsons fans/webmasters. The comedy behind many, many jokes/scenes/tones of voice/endings/gags is
lost on a lot more people than I initially thought.
en_mog
en_mog
en_mog
"Adam W. Long" wrote:
> I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would rather
> watch "Saddlesore..." than "Lisa's Substitute" because they'd rather hear a
> funny story than an emotional one.
>
>
Despite what you may think, that person would not be me. I think Lisa's Substitute
is a fabulous episode. :)
en_mog
Ostap Bender
>> kind of shocked response). If he made a witty comment - now that would
>> look a bit strange.
>
>I disagree. The fact that I recognized it as being odd, indicated to me
>that something was amiss. I don't think you'd catch him doing anything
>like that in season 4,5 or 6.
Just think how you'd react if you saw your face on a japanese
detergent box. I know I'd get a little chill down my spine and
certainly wouldn't come up with anything witty at that moment.
Besides, you expected Homer from seasons 4,5,6 say something witty?
You must've confused him with somebody else. So I wouldn't trust that
irrational impression you got as any kind of indicator if I were
you.
Adam W. Long
Oh no, I didn't mean you specifically. I'm sure you of all people would think
that episode is fabulous, I'm just saying there are people out there that would
rather watch The Simpsons go on a wacky adventure than learn a life lesson.
Not too long ago when my local station would run old Season 1-2 episodes I'd
think "Man, why are they showing those old ones? They're not funny and the
animation sucks!" But in more recent years I've come to cherish those older
ones for 1) their storytelling value and 2) the fact that syndie episodes
rarely predate Season 6 in most places. Right now the 5:30 weekday Simpsons
spot on my local FOX station is in Season 2. I saw "Itchy & Scratchy & Marge"
today for the first time in a long while and I loved it. I enjoyed a long,
hearty laugh at the extremely clever and well-done Psycho ref, Homer's fear of
Maggie, and (of course) S.N.U.H., but also appreciated the story development
and ending where Marge realized the paradox in her position and gracefully
withdrew (Ah, Swartzwelder, how you've changed! 'The Mansion Family' wasn't
anywhere near this...). But not even maybe two years ago I probably wouldn't
even have bothered to watch it, I would've thought something like "Why can't
they show 'Bart After Dark' or 'Hurricane Neddy' for the 6,579th time?" So I
know what it's like to favor both sides. Don't get me wrong, I still love the
show to death and think every episode has entertainment value, but I'm starting
to find the older ones more and more appealing.
Adam W. Long
> detergent box.
Anyone know that Rage Against the Machine shirt for Evil Empire with that
brown-haired superhero-looking boy on it? He looks almost identical to me.
It's kinda weird, although I must admit I am a bit nondescript looking.
Bill McNeal
>> detergent box.
>
>Anyone know that Rage Against the Machine shirt for Evil Empire with that
>brown-haired superhero-looking boy on it? He looks almost identical to me.
>It's kinda weird, although I must admit I am a bit nondescript looking.
Heh heh, that's pretty damn cool.
-An XPeeple Production-
"Don't try to confuse me with the facts." -Bill McNeal
"'Hold on to your rifles, boys, don't give up your dreams.'" -Black 47
"For the first time this whole year 2000 thing is starting to scare me."
-Matthew Brock
Adam W. Long
>>brown-haired superhero-looking boy on it? He looks almost identical to me.
>>It's kinda weird, although I must admit I am a bit nondescript looking.
>
>Heh heh, that's pretty damn cool.
Yeah. The funny thing about it is that I bought that shirt as a birthday
present for a friend of mine and I didn't even notice it until he pointed it
out. Then friends of his when introduced to me would say, "Oh yeah, you're the
guy on Shawn's Rage shirt."
Martin Doyle
However, there are several factors working against me.
1) I've got a Calculus exam at 7:00 tonight (blah!) that I haven't
studied for.
2) I move out Monday
3) I'm a lazy, lazy man.
So be shaken not, I'll reply as soon as possible.
However, there is a slight possibility that it may not be before next
friday. (But I severly doubt that.)
GREG
Martin Doyle
Ostap Bender wrote:
>
> Martin Doyle <mart...@home.com> wrote in <39088BA8...@home.com>:
>
> >> kind of shocked response). If he made a witty comment - now that would
> >> look a bit strange.
> >
> >I disagree. The fact that I recognized it as being odd, indicated to me
> >that something was amiss. I don't think you'd catch him doing anything
> >like that in season 4,5 or 6.
>
> Just think how you'd react if you saw your face on a japanese
> detergent box.
Yes, however, wouldn't it be more frightening to see your exact double?
(IE: Guy Incognito)
However, after Homer sees this, he chases after a puffy tail. It's not
exactly witty, but it's not pointless mumbling...
Hmm...I don't know who's argument that helps.
GREG
Jesus
c/o The Pentagon
Located In The Centre Of
The Chronosynclastic Infundibulum
Nathan Mulac DeHoff
news:3908A8E2...@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Martin Doyle wrote:
>
> > Well, this doesn't really have anything to do with the debate, but I
> > would like to point out something. I don't think an ending has to end in
> > a tight little ball either, but I don't think it should be a 'cop-out'
> > ending. The example that immediately springs to mind is "Das Bus" where
> > they were eventually 'rescued' by, uh...Moe? I mean, the ending there
> > was ununspired and what I consider the 'easy way out'. Instead of
> > thinking of something clever, they tacked on a sort of "PS: Here's what
> > happened". But I digress....
>
> You missed the entire point of the joke. It is very, very clever. How
can you not see that? Mog does
> his best James Earl Jones impression "And they all were eventually rescued
by.. oh let's say Moe" . Do
> you not see what they were trying to do with that line? Do you seriously
think they were lazy? It is
> a very clever, self mocking, perfect ending.
I can see both viewpoints here, and I think I'd have to say that the best
way to describe this ending would be to combine the two already given, and
say that it was a clever cop-out. Sure, it was funny (to me, anyway, and
also to en_mog, apparently), but that doesn't mean that there wasn't some
laziness involved in it. I'm glad they were able to make a good joke out of
the fact that they couldn't write a good ending, but, if they had really
wanted to work on it, they probably could have thought up an ending that was
both funny AND satisfying.
Nathan
Nathan Mulac DeHoff
news:20000427161316...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
>I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would rather
> watch "Saddlesore..." than "Lisa's Substitute" because they'd rather hear
a
> funny story than an emotional one.
Of course, what's "funny" or "emotional" varies from one person to another.
I mean, I got more laughs out of the Bart/Martin presidential race than from
the jockey elf stuff. I also know that some people found the emotion in
"Lisa's Substitute" to be forced. (I'm not one of those people; I'm just
stating the position.) So you could value laughs over emotion, and still
prefer "Substitute," or you could prefer emotion, yet dislike "Substitute."
Nathan