Reviews WesternAnimation / The Simpsons

I know right? The simpson's, with the execption's of hit and run and the movie IMO, hasen't been funny for so damn long. Also since Fox tend's to remove charector's from the show when An actor leaves or die's, I kinda wonder what'll happen when one of their star's of the show dies or more perferbly leaves, what will they do then?

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/5140-The-Simpsons-Is-Still-Funny-Pt-1

And this too:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/5166-The-Simpsons-Is-Still-Funny-Part-2

@Zennistrad

Nope.

What are you talking about The Simpsons have really recovered since the Movie,although it's a different show from the when The Simpsons left Tokyo back '99.

It's not Spongebob at all,its an inversion.

@Zennistrad

Thank you for those "The Big Picture" links. The second one in particular is bang-on in its analysis of how there's no longer a universal "popular culture" for The Simpsons to satirize anymore, but rather numerous niche cultures. So the series has to work with what it has, and for the most part I agree it does that well.

@Zennistrad

A rebuttal to both of those links.

http://deadhomersociety.com/2012/01/25/a-thoughtful-but-demonstrably-dumb-defense-of-zombie-simpsons/

'These are the kind of internet videos where there’s a fast talking voiceover accompanied by a series of pictures, memes and other low cost imagery.' - is bit sassy for someone writing a blog =D (especially considering his lead picture is a print screen of the other guys picture :D)

So I was trying to see if I could find some demographic evidence for the popularity of the Simpsons, this youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqog63KOANc is mainly a 13-17 demographic and I figured the theme tune would be innocuous enough but I figure that Youtube might be automatically skewing it.

This article http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=simpsonsthe says the key Simpsons demographic was 12-17, which fits in with the evidence we have. So I don't think Bob's position is foundless and I think what perhaps the defence article is missing, is that the people who were 12-17 for the Simpsons, are now 18-24, which is probably the most vocal group on the internet. If that group is dissatisfied, it would be pretty easy to create a culture of dissatisfaction that would draw other (primarily older) people in. The counter the argument would be if you could find lots of _young_ people who dislike it, but the article was citing mainly older opinions.

And I think the argument can't be overstated that when the Simpsons was first created, all this was incredibly new and they were filling a pretty much blank spot in our culture. Now we've got South Park and Family Guy and plenty of programs (and particularly internet media and blogs) that are happy to lampoon culture and tell us how much it sucks. So The Simpsons can never be as special as it was when we first encountered it.

And certainly, I've got anecdotal evidence that's it's plenty still popular in the young tween demographic, I've got sisters whose every second thought comes from a Simpsons episode

(Just countering the counter arguments, I don't watch enough new stuff to give an opinion (not because it's bad, I don't know because I don' watch, I just grew out of it I guess) either way, but I'm just saying that Bobs opinion isn't demonstrably dumb and is probably perfectly viable and possibly actually true)

- I should have definitely had 'isn't demonstrably dumb and is probably pretty possible and possibly perfectly precise' as my last sentence

@Tomwithnonumbers: Agreed. The Simpsons once filled a role, within popular culture, that Mad Magazine at its peak once filled. (And which in fact was a big influence on the series, as the writers have acknowledged over the years with affectionate references to Mad in the show itself.) Now it's mostly New Media which fulfill that role, and due to the grassroots nature of online media, there isn't, and likely never again will be, one series that predominates over all the others in that respect.

@Tomwithnonumbers @Alice Macher

You're right that it can't be denied that the Simpsons are ultimately working with what they have against other shows that are in the same vein, but what Dead Homer Society (and most others) is saying is that alone doesn't mean the Simpsons are in any way objectively as funny as before. In fact, Movie Bob's theories can be made for the case of why it isn't funny or relevant anymore.

I mean, can we all agree that the first 8-9 seasons still hold up well, right? There is arguably no need to reinvent or restablish them, because they were fine as they were before. Changing or updating something isn't bad persay, as long as you have competent writing and don't lose the core essence. These are two things that dissenters of new Simpsons have called out time and time again; bad writing and Flanderized characters.

- Just a quick note, length has alot to do with it as well, as nearly everything has been done already. And isn't that what this review is getting at, that they should bow out with whatever dignity they have left?

Flanderisation was a good choice of words =D, TV Tropes entry:

'Naturally, Ned Flanders. Originally all around decent guy next door, he started off as a foil for the dimwitted, short-tempered, yet hardworking Homer (who hadn't yet undergone his own Flanderization). Nowadays watches TV just to find un-Christian things to complain about.

• Flanders is an interesting case since he was flanderized twice. At first, he went from the all around decent guy next door who enjoyed going to church on Sundays to a meek, Bible-obsessed guy, who was still a pretty decent person if also incredibly boring. However, in his second flanderization, his obsession with Christianity grew even more, and turned into an intolerant bigot who demanded a lot of respect for his religion but openly mocked others' (like Apu's Hinduism). This also turned the joke of Homer hating him for no reason into "no wonder why Homer hates him".

• It's probably unintentional, but Ned's second flanderization coincided with the death of his wife Maude, leading to a tragic Alternate Character Interpretation that the loss of his wife and having to be a single father have led him to become bitter, depressed, and more and more hostile to anything that goes against his increasingly fundamentalist religious beliefs.

• Later seasons appear to be ratcheting Flanders back to his middle form, possibly after complaints of taking his character too far. '

So that dates both flanderisations of Flander's, which gave rise to the trope name, occurring in what we all agree as the good seasons, with a slight deflanderisation in the later seasons.

I've kind of been skirting the issue, because I don't really watch new Simpsons and I don't hold a strong opinion of this, but I'm pretty sure we were still in the good seasons when all the characters were flanderised as much as is possible. The [[Flanderization]] quote is 'I think Homer gets stupider every year." —Professor Lawrence Pierce, The Simpsons 138th Episode Spectacular ' which I believe also dates in the second season. Homer had long been flanderised into the total uncaring idiot long before the proposed cancellation, I imagine the peak of Barts flanderisation was back in the Cowabunga days :D.

• in the good seasons. It's the seventh not second, I'm not even sure what word I meant to type instead of 2nd

Your second bullet could've made for some great storytelling, but like you said, it was unintentional. He, like nearly everyone but especially Homer (going from being occasionally selfish to openly admitting he hates being a father on a regular basis), stopped being representative characters and became vehicles for jokes alone, losing any relatability which was a big part of what made Simpsons comedy so great.

But again, that could be acceptable if the writing was even on par with earlier seasons, but it isn't. this is where watching the newer seasons comes into play, as I myself am like you in that I don't want to opine on things i've never even seen. The plots grow more and more outlandish with every episode (suspension of disbelief was dead and buried along time ago on this, I admit) the jokes are either half-assed or go on too long, and the plot rarely have any solid footing, causing them to jump around so irregularly.

Just to clear things up, I was quoting the entry page with those three, I don't want you thinking me more knowledgable than I am :D

"What are you talking about The Simpsons have really recovered since the Movie [...] It's not Spongebob at all,its an inversion."

Nah, I agree with the OP. Seasons 10-18 are more enjoyable than 19-present.

Damn right, end. Now!

While I agree with the sentiment, the review itself...

Well, I can't say a hell of a lot more than "Did Bret Hart write this?"

After seeing that awful ALS Ice Bucket Challenge parody and Willie speaking out for Scottish independence, I've wanted it to end even more than normal. The show has become a plague, a rotting corpse of a show now entirely devoid of humour, character development, innovation wit, charm. I used to respect Matt Groening, but it's hard now because he's selfishly keeping this skeleton of cash cow on the dried up field.

I see your points, but you definitely could have went into more detail.