For those who love Futurama, do you like the Simpsons as well? I understand the Simpsons has had its time in the sun but is it still a worthy t.v. show of your viewing?
The humour in Futurama is arguably different from the Simpsons. (e.g.) My mom laughs at jokes in the Simpsons but does not understand any of the humour in Futurama. I think this is because it is more like a t.v. show for the younger generation whereas with the Simpsons was identifiable with the young as well as the old(er).
I still LOVE the Simpsons but I fear that candle has burnt out and with the scarcity of GOOD new episodes, it won't last much longer. I am much more interested in seeing Futurama being extended to 18 seasons rather than the Simpsons being extended for even two more seasons because the writers/producers have run out of ideas (or at least GOOD ideas).
So, keeping in mind that this is just one viewer's opinion, please let me know what you think. Don't hate, just state!!
I rather lost interest in The Simpsons. Part of that was down to irregular scheduling in the UK (aside: is there _anywhere_ that gives animated shows a regular schedule?), but mostly it was because as time went on I found I really didn't care what happened to any of the principal characters. I think that's because the characters never actually go anywhere. They're the same as they were when they first appeared. I can't care about what happens to them because _nothing_ happens to them. Every day is Groundhog Day in Springfield.
There's no question that The Simpsons was a show of major importance in bringing animation into mainstream entertainment, but other shows (and films) have achieved so much more with the medium. Futurama has, in the form of Fry and Leela, one of the most compellingly engaging character-led stories in any series. Family Guy takes the surrealism that's possible in animation to whole new levels. Pixar have created animated features with real heart and soul (such as A Bug's Life and Toy Story 2). Studios like Aardman have done wonders with claymation. Next to what has been achieved elsewhere The Simpsons feels like the proof-of-concept show that wouldn't die. It was ground-breaking in its time, but if you don't move on after breaking the ground then all you'll do is dig yourself into a hole.
=v= _The_Simpsons_ has blazed nearly every trail followed by this century's animated shows (_Futurama_ included, of course). Perhaps it doesn't blaze as many as it used to, but that's the usual result of being so popular for so long.
=v= I'm afraid I must take strenuous exception to this:
I can't watch that show without being reminded, incessantly, of its many, many, many influences -- _The_Simpsons_ being #1 on the list. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then flattery is what that show takes to whole new levels. <_Jym_>
I don't see it that way. The Simpsons was a trailblazer in bringing animation to adult primetime television, but after that it became stuck. The problem faced by any series is that once it establishes itself it becomes trapped by its own success: it can't stray too far from the formula that made it successful because the fans won't stand for it.
For me the main problem is that The Simpsons doesn't have any concept of time passing. The characters are the same as they've always been. Futurama progresses: Fry and Leela have become closer, as have Kif and Amy, and then there's the whole Nibblonians thread running through the series. There's a process of development there, and development of a situation opens up many new possibilities for stories.
The Simpsons has no development. The situation is unchanging, and that puts tight restrictions on the number of stories that can be told. How many different stories can you come up with when all of them have to have the same starting point? Just as importantly, it imposes severe constraints on the _type_ of story that can be told, because anything that would introduce an irrevocable situational change for one of the major characters is forbidden. That's not a problem for a couple of series, and perhaps not for four or five, but The Simpsons is getting on for two decades old now and to me there's a real seen-it-all-before feel about the show.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not holding up Family Guy as an example of the best in animation (though I do enjoy it, and I love the fact that it's one of the few shows to use a full orchestra). But it makes very heavy use of one advantage animation has over other formats: the ability to present even the most surreal and impossible situations as easily as realistic ones. Family Guy has embraced this and gleefully leaps into the impossible every few minutes. The Simpsons has ventured into that territory, but only rarely: most of what it does could be done just as easily with live action. There have been some really great moments in The Simpsons, but it's rare that the show makes full use of the things animation does best.
(As for imitation, one of the problems I have with Family Guy is that often it's clear that the show is imitating something else, but as the something else is something that hasn't made it to the UK I haven't a clue what the joke is supposed to be. It happens two or three times an episode, and even with the DVD commentary to explain the joke it's still a matter of "OK. I see. Not funny.")
"The Simpsons has no development. The situation is unchanging, and that puts tight restrictions on the number of stories that can be told."
I disagree with you on that point because, for example, there was an episode where Frank Grimes' son tries to kill Homer because Homer PREVIOUSLY drove his father, Frank Grimes, to his death. That was definitely progressive. What about such episodes where a character lists what happened previously? For example, Homer lists his own jobs that he once was hired for (astronaut, ice cream man, etc.).
If you think the problem with new episodes is about its limitations as a certain type of situational comedy, you're mistaken. There are millions of ideas for good episodes that could be realised. I think the problem lies within the writers and their lack of inspirations.
You also mentioned:
"The Simpsons is getting on for two decades old now and to me there's a real seen-it-all-before feel about the show."
This is definitely true because the same characters seem to show up with celebrities sprinkled throughout all the time. Every flame burns out eventually. As for the halting of the series continuation of seasons, I'm not sure if that will happen soon. I sure think that 18 seasons is pretty long but what would you say about Futurama after it being 18 seasons long? You would say it's run its course and it's becoming more of the same, wouldn't you? It just happens to every popular piece of pop culture through the ages. I sure wish you would write stories for animated t.v. shows because I think maybe you could provide longevity for such popular shows that run their courses.
It depends where the show has gone by that time. If time within the Futurama universe has moved on and the writers are still able to create new and interesting stories for the characters, both at the level of individual episodes and over the course of a series, then I'd be happy to see Futurama continue for that long. If, on the other hand, Fry is still trying to get Leela to go out with him, or if Fry and Leela are married but the writers can't think of anything to do with the characters now the tension between them has gone, then I'd hope they'd have the sense to tie up any loose ends and bring the show to a close. I want to see genuinely new episodes rather than a rerun of season one with different plots.
I love Futurama because I care what happens to the characters. For me that's the difference between adequate fiction and great fiction. I care what happens because I don't know how things will turn out in the long run. That's what makes it compelling viewing.
The Simpsons can be very funny, but that's not enough for me. I can't care about the characters because I always know how things will turn out. There's no point wondering whether Bart's lack of interest in school will have an adverse effect on his career, or if Lisa's love of music will set the pattern of her life, because -- occasional fantasy sequences aside -- I'll never see them grow up. Marge and Homer may have their disagreements but they'll always be together and even the fiercest of arguments will blow over within twenty minutes.
That's what I mean when I say there's no progression. The Simpsons family are the same people they were in 1989, and should the series last long enough they'll still be the same people twenty years from now. I can laugh at The Simpsons but I can't find it emotionally engaging, and for me that means it can never be a great programme, but merely a reasonably amusing one.
IMHO, only series 2/3 through to 6/7 of the Simpsons are worth watching. Series 1 was great at the time but I don't think the humour's stood the test of time. After Series 6 the show became too slick and overly random to be enjoyable.
So I'm solely a Futurama fan now! I'm excited about the new series of Futurama coming up, and David X Cohen's interview about it (http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/toyfare/002710592.cfm) has kept me confident they can pull it off after the hiatus that Fox imposed on them.
(Also hi everyone, I'm new here, but not new to usenet so I won't annoy you with topposting and the like :P)
I loved the simpsons but after futurama went off air the simpsons became futuramaish. The humor and situations and stuff changed alot. It just seems like a parody of futurama now and I can't stand that.
Hi, I don't have any idea what you're talking about. The two shows are so totally different that I just can't find any parallels between the two except the style of characters. The Simpsons' "new" humour is not at all like Futurama because if it was, then Futurama would be just as terrible.
Me neither. I admit I haven't seen every episode of The Simpsons ever made, but even in the episodes I _have_ seen I don't recall alcoholic robots, beautiful one-eyed mutants and weird, stinky lobster monsters playing a significant role in the daily life of Springfield.
I don't think you understand what he meant. I think he meant that the Simpsons draws the same type of humour (not characters) and whatnot from Futurama.
And as for the Futurama characters "not playing a significant role in the daily life of Springfield", you're wrong! Have you not read all four issues of the "Futurama Simpsons Infinitely Secret Crossover Crisis"? Yes, these are some of Bongo Comics Groups' best comix and the Futurama characters kicked ass in the Springfield! I think they're coming out with a trade paperback collecting all four crossover issues and Simpsons Comics #87 soon. Buy it!
What you guys said was a little dense, cept I get the diss on the Simpsons from art. I don't mean the characters are on the Simpsons. I mean the Simpson went from being not being very edgy and very original with a little parody on current events and past events, to being very edgy, and not very original because so many situations are parodies of events and so many of their characters are parodies of real people.
I know I'm not putting up too strong of an argument but if you compare earlier simpson seasons to newer seasons it seems so very different. and if you compare both to Futurama, the later seasons seem to match in humor and situations. It makes me think that Futurama just ended up being an experiment to see if that type of humor would be good. Then they applied the results to the Simpsons. Maybe it is just a natural evolution though and has nothing to do with Futurama. That would mean though that Futurama was ahead of the curve in its humor.
Well, it would be funny, I suppose, if you had been talking to someone in real life. You can still be a comedy writer. This is just the internet where your intent can sometimes be unrecognizeable.
It's funny after the fact. I didn't understand sarcasm or obvious ignorance. I mean I thought that was a little much, but I don't know if a 5 y/o is replying to me or a harvard graduate.
The reply is from a 5 y/o harvard graduate who lives in Brazil and plays badminton but reads "The Walrus" for some reason. There are all types of people who reply, you just have to respect their posts...
I always liked the Simpsons, but Futurama came to me much later. I never saw it while it was being aired. At first viewing on DVD, I didn't get it. However, much like my first exposure to "Firefly", once I did, the love was deep and lasting. Plus the fact that they were both cancelled gives them the undeniable underdog appeal.
After sitting down and watching them again, I was struck by the larger and longer story and character arcs that revealed themselves. That, more than anything else, has solidified "Futurama" in my all-time fave- rave list.
Here are my favorite animated sitcoms in descending order of greatness:
South Park The Simpsons Family Guy/American Dad (tie)
I didn't include Futurama, because I don't consider Futurama an animated sit-com, I consider it an animated comedic drama. What I mean by that is that Futurama's characters (well, a few of them, anyway) are portrayed realistically enough that I see them as "people" characters rather than "cartoon" characters. For example, when Lisa develops a love interest and gets her heart broken, I might feel a sort of sadness, but it's in a semi-detached way. When Fry makes an attempt to tell Lela how he feels and gets shot down or ignored, I feel almost like it happened to me.
South Park has had a lot of crappy episodes, but when it's really good, it's funnier than anything and the satire outshines the sun; also the show has made some *very* bold criticisms of major organizations, some of which are known to aggressively sue the ass off anyone who says something against them in public. The show has taken some outrageous chances, and the times they paid off more than made up for the times they didn't.
The Simpsons... well, I've watched regularly since the very first episode. In general the trend has been downhill, because the show is restricted by its family-friendly format and reluctance to offend too many people, so they've covered about all the ground that's available to them, a few times over. However, the last episode was IMO one of the top two, yes I said TOP TWO Simpsons episodes of all time, because it parodied two separate South Park episodes and did it so cleverly the episode was almost over before I realized what was happening.
FG and AD have enough funny moments and quality to be worth watching.
Though I would seriously grieve if South Park went off the air, I would give it and the other four shows up to keep Futurama if I had to. The somewhat more-realistic characters, combined with multi-season story arcs (like Leela's little guy who made dark matter, can't think of his name now) combined with the excellent satire, the sci-fi theme and some terrific gags make it not only top of the list but outscoring the other three altogether.
What about King of the Hill? Well, that's a tough one. I liked it at first then grew to dislike it and stopped watching it because there was too much drama. The show is excellently done, but when I watch it, I get this sense of subtle but deep human futility underlying everything. Maybe it's just me. If it's really something in the show, then the show is more than excellently done; it will probably be considered classic art someday. That doesn't change the fact that it depresses me so I stopped watching it.