Cheating in cartoons?

Oh dear sorry about this but I seem to be on a roll tonight...

In the Simpsons series 11 episode Pygmoelian

spoiler.... . . . .. Homer sets off the smoke alarm in the early hours to trick his family into rushing out of the house into the car so he can drive them to the Duff festival nice and early.

Thing is, when they get in the car they are all in their pyjamas, but when they arrive at the beer festival they are all dressed in their normal clothes ie Homer in his blue pants and white shirt etc .

Now call me an anorak but isn't this cheating? or does that not apply in cartoons. In cartoons we can happily watch things happen that are impossible (eg someone draws a door on a wall then opens it and runs through) but this clothes swap just seems clumsy and cheating.

Any opinons? I will also post this to the eggheads in the philsophy newsgroup, they'll sort it out for us

read & snipped

The continuity person was on strike; but you have a point, you'd think at least Lisa would have realised that.

PS why are Americans yellow?

"violet" wrote in message news:[email]...

Obviously, we're a jaundiced nation.

-- R Flowers ---- And you might want to pass up any lemon snowcones we offer you.

re: they're shown getting into the car in p.j.s (?)

welllll:

10. an editor in Korea has again boo-booed, and the firing squad is next week 9. do you know how much $ the union would grieve for the minor fix? 8. a cartoon is much more than real life--it's important to keep 'em interested when they get bored by the SIMPSON writers' joke formulas, so throw-in some dis-continuities for fanatics to jaw-over on the internet 7. If you complain to Murdoch, I'm sure he'll clean 'em up these amoral contrivers & manipulators 6. Mo's voice was on CONAN a couple of nights ago, but it may have been a repeat, so this information is therefore irrelevant though vastly innocuous and trivial 5.--1. Hey, eat at McDonald's and drop dead

Good one! :-) LOL!

L¢vix Xpac3 Mvx3vm

Robert Cohen wrote:

read & snipped

LOL ;-) I have never even been in a McD's - that 'clown' is scaaaaaary, but I suppose if I wasn't a vegetarian I might think it was 'cute'?

Robert Cohen wrote:

read & snipped

I lost my vegatariany when I was 13! It was scary, too.

R Flowers wrote:

You haven't been to the UK then?

PS why are Americans yellow?

Didja notice that orientals are white? Why are you violet?

[email] wrote:

I am so utterly ultra and just like being different. Also, no-one seems to have any prejudices against that end of the spectrum. V

violet ([email]) wrote:

Or Homer stashed a change of clothes for them ahead of time. Of course, this means that Bart and Lisa changed their clothes next to each other, but some families don't have a problem with that.

Brad

For at least one episode

And unlike Darren Hayes, Smither's is gay and Hayes is not

Isn't Darren Hayes the guy that Vito was dancing with last week on the Sopranos? I know that name sounds familiar.

Gary

"Neil Coward" wrote in message news:[email]...

Since my answer doesn't have any philosophical implications, I am not cross-posting it.

Obviously, if Homer was excited enough about the festival to trick them into the car, he would have put their clothes in there.

Maybe.

-- R Flowers ---- I wear the blue pants in this family.

Nah! Homer wouldn't be smart enough to realise that he and his family needed a change of clothes. Wasn't there one episode where, before he stored off to City Hall, he asked Lisa if he had his pants on?

I'm just assuming the writers had done the joke, then moved on to the actual Duff festival. Its just that cartoons usually bend reality but I don't think they should break it. Case in point - the Halloween specials, these are meant to be fictional versions of The Simpsons if you know what I mean, Bart, or someone, introduces them as scary tales so we know they have not 'really' happened. But why not just say what the hell and have them as proper storylines. Sure they all turned into Vampires last weekbut hey this is only a cartoon, we're all back to normal this week. So you see what I mean about 'cheating' . Like another episode recently where the sea captain showed he had TWO !. Right so he's been blind all this time has he? That doesn't make sense, how could he have... etc etc But again this was just a throwaway joke and it back to being able to see in the next episode.

Typed a bit too quick there. This is the same post with the typos corrected

"> Nah! Homer wouldn't be smart enough to realise that he and his family needed

re: intellectual consistency, plot integrity, insulting us the viewers

THE SIMPSONS ain't no Tom 'n Jerry 'n Mighty Mouse 'n Tweety 'n Sylvester.

This is truly an adult cartoon aimed at a fairly mature thinking audience.

It is the best satire on tv that I've ever witnessed, and I'll change my mind if SNL has a good opening this Saturday night live or on tape.

Well, maybe THE SIMPSONS is also aimed at children and has the straight sight-gags & comical humor too that all can appreciate.

So, they oughta be more careful with the glitches of illogicalness?

Noooo.

My holding is the satire point is all-important overall.

There are so many asides in THE SIMPSONS that they are frequently merely satirizing themselves within: I've rarely seen anything as self-demeaning (except for my anti-Harbrace grammar & misspellings).

I note the often warm' fuzzy endings are attracting the churchy people, and there is nuthin wrong with that either, so long as Ned can be Ned.

It's COMPLEX work they do, and they can't solve the real contradictions & crazinesses in our semi-terrific world, and so they must make the illogical jumps and atrociously cute sillinessses and absurdities to sell sodiumized cholesterol McBurgers and trans-salty McFries.

<snip><snip><snip>

It seems that once again my superior intelligence is required here now that the entire collected intellect of all users of a.t.s has been depleted. (except for me)

The word, gentlemen, that you are looking for is CONVENTION. Not cheating. The producers and writers established their own convention early on in the series, then later explicitly displayed it in such scenes in which we see two Homers.

So everyone look it up in the dictionary, then continue in your discussion as before. I'll keep lurking just in case you need my help again.

XINO

"Xino Kiner" wrote in message news:[email]...

I was close. I was thinking CONVECTION.

-- R Flowers ---- Now the heat is on...

Neil Coward wrote:

Well, yes, I do sort of see your point. FWIW try to laugh more and think less, I'm really curious-what job/s do you do? research?

What is the ideal balance then? 100% laughing and 0% thinking? Thinking has worked ok for me so far. I work in IT, earn a very good salary and own my own home. Good luck with your laughing though......

"violet" wrote in message news:[email]...

Sorry if I've offended you, didn't mean to. I used to work in ICT (also Physics research, business, lecturing, voluntary work) I don't have to work now but am setting up my own business (without any need to ask for money) I have a half share in 2 fairly large, detached houses, one in Surrey and the other in London and I flat we were renting out; but I do have to split these with my soon to be ex hubby. So I suppose I ought to be able to laugh but since I am recovering from depression, I don't find it that easy. Thinking, however, is something I do too much of; my IQ is in the top 0.5% of pop.

Take it easy, but remember work, salary, houses are all very well - it's whether you've got the right people in your life that matters. :-)

Arggghhh! I'm getting my come uppance (thud biff bash)

"violet" wrote in message news:[email]...

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 21:52:35 GMT, R Flowers wrote:

Maybe perhaps the entire drive wasn't shown. Would a ten hour long cartoon be prefered to just skipping over the drive?

Neil Coward wrote:

I don't know any anorak phone numbers.

How do you know they didn't turn around, get dressed, and head off again? There's only so much they can fit into 22 minutes.

-- Don

Can I call you a cab instead?

They could do it live I suppose, but it's a tremendous strain on the animator's wrists...

Paul

"Paul Bartram" <p.bartram AT OR NEAR optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:443f01a1$0$7527$[email]...

Cartoons don't have to be 100% accurate.

-- R Flowers

Whaaaaat? Surely you jest.

Gary

Stupid signature to follow

Xino, how many email accounts do you have?

L¢vix Xpac3 Mvx3vm

cartoons.

How many times are you going to ask that question?

in

I'm waiting for an answer...

still waiting.......

On 22-Apr-2006, "Xino Kiner" wrote:

I bet that he is going to ask eight more times.

In one episode, Bart and Lisa wanted to get out of a car, so they drew an "Eject" button on the seat, pressed it, and they were ejected out of the car.

L¢vix Xpac3 Mvx3vm

[email] wrote:

What's youor point? I can do that in my Rover.

I had a Chevy Vega that would do that! Mmmm, the 70's

Gary

I'll bet there is a stupid ad after this line.....

Was it a Cosworth Twin Cam Vega? Or one of those bad ones where you had to rebuild the engine with a kit from J.C. Whitney?

L¢vix Xpac3 Mvx3vm

On 14-Apr-2006, "[email]" wrote:

Mine was the J.C. Whitney type. I think that's how the eject button ended up in the car. It had the "turbo option". It came with a cassette the had a recording of "vrrrroooooommmm". Pale green (2 tone). Serious chick magnet.

Gary.

Though I search through the valley for the source of all that is good, instead I find

What kind of chicks? The "Gummy Sue" type?

Aar¢n L¢vix Xpac3 Mvx3vm

wrote in message

Hopefully not those "don't call me a chick" chicks.

XINO

On 14-Apr-2006, "Xino Kiner" wrote:

Never actually found out. It was another thing on that stupid car that didn't work.

By the way, did you ever tell Aaron how many e-mail accounts you have? Now I'm curious, too.

Gary

Below is not the best way to find

<Gary Wallace>

Aaron knows that all of those other people aren't really me. We're not actually mad at each other, it's just that Aaron seems to have some insatiable need to pick on me for various reasons of which we will not discuss now. I'm not mad at him, I could never stay mad at another Packers fan even though he doesn't live anywhere near Wisconsin.

I think that it's funny when he tries to pick on me, at least it will help him with his goal for all time top poster, which I support. Judging from the private email I receive he is very much liked by the lurkers of a.t.s as well.

XINO

Xino, you will forever be teased because of your "I don't get the stadium reference", in reference to Jimmy Hoffa being buried at Giants Stadium. Even though it is only urban legend that he is buried there.

Aurora Borealis, at this latitude, this time of the year, only in your kitchen.

Aaron Space Museum

wrote in message news:[email]... What kind of chicks? The "Gummy Sue" type?

Maybe the "Gummi D'Milo"?

-- R Flowers ---- Oh, if only real chicks went down this easily.

Yes but that was in one of the treehouse of horror episodes, which are not supposed to have 'really' happened. I mean in one Homer's head got turned into a doughnut! So how do they correct that in time for next week? simple, it was just a treehouse of horror 'story'

wrote in message news:[email]...

In one episode, Bart and Lisa wanted to get out of a car, so they drew an "Eject" button on the seat, pressed it, and they were ejected out of the car.

L�vix Xpac3 Mvx3vm

Wht would a cartoon be without cheating. Or a novel - I mean how can we know what they are thinking? - or Van Gogh's paintings, I mean it just doesn't look like that out there, at least it didn't before I saw his work. Not that the simpson's is art. It's kinda art. But like art its a 'take' on things. And takes are entertining and perhaps give us through a distorting mirror insight into aspects of reality we don't notice or notice enough. Neil Coward skrev:

I'm talking about stuff that doesn't make logical sense here. Novels don't cheat either I mean for example the plot has to be believeable and realistic according to its own rules. Imagine if you read a book and the plot was full of holes, you wouldn't just say "ah well its art so anything goes" No there are rules to art and rules to cartoons I think. I was just trying to find out what they are! Characters in their pyjamas getting into the car and full dressed getting out of the car is just sloppy writing.

wrote in message news:[email]...

wrote

And what was Salvador Dali smoking?

Paul

"Paul Bartram" <p.bartram AT OR NEAR optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:444097f9$1$7530$[email]...

He was eating rotisserie chicken.

-- R Flowers

Neil Coward wrote:

They might have had a part with Homer putting the clothes they would need in the back seat but the part got clipped out because of time constraints, or the people making the cartoon noticed but it was too late to change it, or they just didn't care.

Probably the first option and the conversation probably went something like, "we need 15 more seconds to let one of the commercials finish, edit the scene?

Try and think of other possible reasons to exaust the "possibility space"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=F-bQ_rs2_OE

On 14-Apr-2006, "Immortalist" wrote:

The artists were trying to remember what song Lisa played on her saxophone in that Baker Street episode and they forgot to draw the Simpsons getting dressed behind that billboard out on old route 37 (the one in Kentucky). Then the head artist said "D'oh, vely solly" - They were all subsequently fired and hopes came true. Either that or it's the Smithers being black thing. My donation to the "possibility space"

Never believe an ad at the end of a usenet post.......

re: Purism in Tooning

Ten Integral Inelegant Principles in Orthodox Cartooning

10. A cartoon character cusses using standard symbols: with the caps locked--they're located on the first row of your convenient keyboard.

• Orange or chartreuse or purple hair coloring = de rigeur.

8. "Dagwood" Bumstead never ever wins: This non-gem was a panel & movie in the distant 20th century with Daisy the mutt & puppies, son Alexander, daughter Kathy ( maybe Babs), wife Blondie, neighbor Herb, and Mr. Dithers of The Dithers Construction Company--plus that postman Dagwood runs-over trying to catch the crowded bus.

7. "Katzenjammer Kids" This was an import, though every kid skipped it because the satire wasn't there. The K Kids was either too sophisticated or too dumb for me.

6. MAJOR HOOPLE in OUR BOARDING HOUSE, another turkey though less unfunny than #7.

5. POPEYE: The Spinach Lobby was accused of being behind the contrivances of Blimpie, Olive Oil, Blutto and Peapie/Popeye Jr. Subsequently the Robin Williams' acclaimed immaculate depiction earned the Gene Hersholt award presented by Bob Hope, the 20th century's greatest actor, such as in Bob's ON THE ROAD WITH JERRY COLONA.

4. NANCY: Aunt Fritzi & Sluggo were plain badder than Bonny Faye Parker & Warren Clyde Beatty, though not nearly as ludicrous: Nevertheless, MY all time favorite, plus I had a vest suit sort of like Clyde's tan suit, but it was donated to Goodwill a coupla years ago, and I've been peed ever since.

3. ARCHIE: Jughead, Veronica, Betty, and Mr. Dithers. The greatest ensemble since the SEINFIELD cast didn't walk on the Moon.

2. WINKY DINK: See ---> Jack Barry: Made it okay to actually color on the tv set screen, I swear. A piece of thick Saran Wrap was stuck on that glass screen. Perhaps the worst entertainment prior to Cosby's PICTURE PAGES or Sherry's KUKLA, OLLIE & FRAN.

1. And the most trivialist principal of Cartooning: Gary Trudeau's lame DOONESBURY.

1.

oops, that row is for the F stuff left-over from the primitive 1990s

i meant the second row of keys course

other than that, the posting has been guaranteed & certified by the center for communicable disease

I am not sure that will fit into the possibility space.

What say you Immortalist?

Do we have a winner?

Gary

I have given up hoping on finding.....

to: non-mortalitists etal

When cartoon afficiuandos (Italian spelling, but don't look it up for verification) & the usual esoterians (Eso was gas and is still Humble-y in Canada or someplace) attempt to re--construct the de-constructive subject matter that is in play, then it's entirely appro-pose to offer fartoons of cartoons, and thus i can't give a shite if it's not fit.

On 16-Apr-2006, "Robert Cohen" wrote:

Er, OK. What I actually meant was to ask Immortalist if your response would indeed fill the possibility space as outlined in an earlier post. And your answers were quite amusing. I certainly meant no offense. Just trying to help fill the possibility space. So it's not "fit" as in apt or applicable - more as in fitting in the imaginary cubic space (or whatever dimension you would care to imagine).

Gary

re: that's what i kinduv thought, and hereby retract my paranoiac defense taken

I watched the Sunday night show about Marge joining the red hats.

It is adult stuff.

Not the best of THE SIMPSONS, but allow me to kibbitz/comment thusly:

It is self-mocking, as with the hat pushing-down the purple trade-mark hair.

And, though Mo doesn't logically belong; a Mo cameo throw-in couldn't hurt.

The toon isn't integral-linear-logical nor supposed to be, and that transformation of Milhouse into LA DOLCE VITA Italian is perfecto.

Well what's untoward about this freak occurrence it is that:

a) None of the characters comment on this bizarre behaviour. So while it looks like things should be carrying on as normally as they do in the Simpsons everything has not carried on as normal. The lack of comment on this abnormal feature is one clue that makes us think it's a mistake.

b) There are no other examples of the same thing happening that would make us think it's some kind of conceit the animators have got going in this particular episode. I.e. It just happens once. (Of course then there's the question 'And how many times would it take before you think it's a conceit rather than a mistake?' at which point things get a little trickier and the philosophers have to call in a professional mathematician and/or psychologist to gibber at people about frequencies of occurrence determining decisions in certain sections of the population, but basically what you find is that as the frequency of 'mistakes' increases there's more of a tendency to regard it as simply part of the cartoon and accept it as an unusual feature, rather than simply as a mistake).

In essence, then:

(a) Something out of the ordinary (as far as the Simpsons is concerned) occurs and none of the characters say anything about it, and

(b) This weird thing happens only once.

Er.

That's it!

It's kinda forgivable in a cartoon, but it'd be more distracting/annoying in a live action show.

W : )

Kinda like Superman, but with everyone changing in and out of their Super-Costumes every 5 minutes.