Three other points of criticism

I had a few ideas I�d like to post as addition to my last 4 points of criticism.

The posting�s maybe a little angry and exaggerated, so let me say again that all this is just my own opinion and the way I see things from my personal point of view. I�m maybe right or I�m maybe wrong, feel free to make your own opinion and tell me what you think.

I. The show as anachronism

I tried to sum up all the possible points of criticism into a single line. It�s not easy, as it usually needs a lot of rambling to write about the concepts of decline, but finally the following came to my mind:

"The show traded in its almost unique ability to satirize society in a brilliant way for the much more common ability to please the masses."

When the show started in late 1989 (let�s leave the 1987 - 1989 shorts aside) it had something we can call enthusiasm. It wasn�t very much about money, it wasn�t very much about merchandise and, most important of all, it wasn�t very much about pleasing the masses. Of course, to a certain degree it was about ratings and making money, but in those days it was still a little more than that, it wasn�t so controlled by money and profit and ratings and merchandise industry.

It was an experiment, the great TV experiment of the late 80s and early 90s, a cartoon show with intelligent content, "living" reality and characters and subversive messages. It was enthusiasm to go into prime time with such a poor animation quality as in the very first S1 episodes, it was the idea to rely on the greatness behind the animation, not on loud jokes and cool celebrities. The show back in the early 90s was something very special, something...how should I say...free-spirited.

And that�s the root of the problem. The show was an anachronism from the very beginning on. The normal TV viewers (considered as mass) don�t want to see stuff where they have to think, they want to see simpler stuff and straight humor. It has always been like that, though it has become worse and worse in the last years (that�s the zeitgeist, the overestimation of simple fun and neglect of content in the media) so the Simpsons *had* to fall into line, it had to become simpler and simpler and finally it had to evolve or degrade into what it is now. That�s sad but true. To sum it up:

"It was a working anachronism - an element that refused to be a part of pop culture and to give up the ability to satirize it - and that�s IMO what made it so great, that�s what it has lost now."

It�s a complex matter of discussion whether the development of todays media-behaviour comes from interior sources (the viewers themselves demand simplified entertainment without deeper insights) or exterior sources (the TV stations and networks only show simple entertainment to "raise" viewers of a new generation who don�t appreciate content) but that�s another topic.

The show kept its true style (or at least parts of it) for a surprisingly long time and it was always able to rescue the old "free spirit" into new stages of development, so I�ve never seen an anachronism living for so long, but finally it was over. The dream was over. The old anachronism of the 90s, the great TV experiment, had become a hilarious freakin� funny cartoon show, the ratings went up, the masses were pleased. It�s IMO not really possible to define an exact point in time when that happened (see point II) but there was maybe some day when the free (but already weakened) spirit of the old days hit the ground like a parasailer crashing through the roof of some celebrities house - if I may use that suitable example.

Maybe it was unavoidable for the show to hit the ground, but there was always hope that it would be strong enough to stay above the line, not to fall into line. Some years ago, I thought that descent into conformity would start already in season 5, but then came season 7 and the old spirit was strong and truly evolved and renewed with fresh ideas and I had hope again. The development from season 5 through season 6 to season 7 is IMO an example of how a degradation process can turn itself into an evolution process.

But then came season 8, then season 9 and finally season 10 and one day I realized, that it finally had happened. The dream was over. What we have now is IMO the empty shell the old spirit had left when it was gone, a shell living from its past and from the acceptance of low-level humor, a hip icon of pop culture, finally no longer an anachronism and thus IMO mostly useless.

II. "Jumping the Shark" as a process

It�s IMO not really interesting to discuss whether the show had jumped the shark or not, I�d say that discussion comes at least 4 or 5 years too late. It�s also pretty useless to define JTS (jump the shark) as an exact point in time, as single episode. I�d say JTS is a slow process that began many years ago.

The show has lost almost every quality that made it special, has lost almost everything that seperated it from mainstream cartoons and hackneyed sitcoms, has lost almost everything that lifted it above the level of pop culture and above the level of simplified TV entertainment etc etc. - yet people still discuss whether it had jumped the shark, jumps the shark right now or will maybe jump the shark in the future. Seems to me like some kind of social phenomenon.

It would be much more interesting to discuss when, why, in what form, and how often (sic) the show has jumped the shark. Some people (the most radical oldschoolers) will maybe say the show jumped the shark when 8F24 "Kamp Krusty" aired at the beginning of season 4 and they�ll point out the lack of depth and intellectual insight that came into the show after season 3, others will maybe name 9F22 "Cape Feare" when Sideshow Bob was degraded to a slapstick clown or other season 5 episodes or maybe a season 8 episode and so on and so on.

I don�t want to say that I agree with any of these episodes as JTS points, I just want to say that there are in fact many moments in the show�s history which can be considered as JTS points, it depends on what you expect from the show. Some JTS points may seem rather far-fetched, others are more valid and as it is quite impossible to select just a single episode from an evolution (or degradation) process it�s better to consider JTS as a development instead of a single episode. This doesn�t mean that there are no single episodes which stand out as problem episodes, but such episodes are either JTS points of their own (so there are more than one) or stages in a JTS development.

We can consider such episodes as "point of no return", when for example a certain quality was lost forever and the show defined itself in a new (usually emptier) way than it used to be. These are the most valid points in the JTS process, we could theoretically name episodes like "Cape Feare" or "When You Dish Upon a Star" or "Beyond Blunderdome" to define such "stages".

To sum it up:

"The show jumped the shark in a slow process, a process of falling into line and becoming more and more mass-conform through simplification of humor and content."

III. The quality of writing

The writing used to be a source of inspiration and creativity, a "factory" where society and life were satirized in a brilliant balance between cartoon-oriented fun and real-life-oriented insight. Writing in classic years meant creating a working reality with working characters in a working plot which was funny *and* serious *and* thought-provoking at the same time. The writers developed plots with deeper meaning, shown in a unified plotline on large scale, shown for example with poems or parts of literature on smaller scale within the plot (remember "The Road Not Taken" in 9F11) or plots that worked on various levels of meaning and message, like 7G12 and many others in the first years.

They had to think about the use of symbolism and true surrealism, the use of reference material from literature (e.g. "The Raven" in THOH 1) or art (e.g. the Rembrandt paintings as background in 7G13) or classic movies (e.g. 8F05 "Like Father Like Clown" which is a reference to "The Jazzsinger") and they had to respect the characters and so on and so on. There was a time when plotlines supported each other, exchanged elements, merged. A time when almost every episode was written in the same and very high quality, when the show really had the best writing of all shows on TV.

What about today? Standardized. Simplified. Mainstream. I guess there�s not much need for creativity and inspiration (for both, writers and viewers) in an empty shell.

To repeat the three lines that IMO sum up parts of the problem:

"The show traded in its almost unique ability to satirize society in a brilliant way for the much more common ability to please the masses."

"It was a working anachronism - an element that refused to be a part of pop culture and to give up the ability to satirize it - and that�s IMO what made it so great, that�s what it has lost now."

"The show jumped the shark in a slow process, a process of falling into line and becoming more and more mass-conform through simplification of humor and content."

So far from me. Comments are welcome

Chris

You must be getting paid by the word.

"Chris Pfeiler" wrote in message news:[email]...

that

point

opinion

It�s

concepts of

aside)

it

very

about

than

merchandise

90s, a

poor

rely on

celebrities. The

should I

very

straight

in

it

into

pop

made it

TV

a

long

stages of

finally

TV

ratings

an

some

ground

I

always

into

and

of how

now is

living

pop

late.

in

years

almost

sitcoms,

and

how

Krusty"

and

maybe

or

I

the

and as

(or

of a

stand

own

(usually

JTS

You

line

and

years

The

on

smaller

that

others in

of

(e.g.

8F05

they had

plotlines

really had

not

in an

pop

made it

line

and

On Fri, 31 May 2002 19:46:53 GMT, "That Guy" wrote:

Is that really a reason to reply to him by quoting his entire message with a one line reply? Ugh...

TTYL

Yeah, I hate that.

________________________________________________________________

If love of money is the root of all evil, why do churches want it so badly?

Remove "bination" to reply.

In article ,

Me too.

On 18 Jun 2002 17:00:51 -0400, [email] (David Gaudine) wrote:

Quick, set fire to yourselves!

And to these permanent records...

TTYL

Chris Pfeiler wrote in message news:[email]...

money, it

very

You can't really believe that!? If you think that Groening and all the people involved in "The Simpsons" weren't (from the get-go)sacrificing virgins to the gods, then you know nothing about artists, TV executives, advertizers, etc.

merchandise

That's because merchandise didn't come out until 1990!

90s

All new programs are "experiments". Lots of so-called good programming goes the way of the dinosaur because of poor ratings. "The Simpsons" survived because of good ratings.

pop

made it

The fact that it was "Tracy Ullman" made it part of pop culture from the very beginning.

TV

a

This has been said of television for generations.

The dream is over? This is as sad as trekkie-talk. Long before "The Simpsons" Groening made fun of everything, including himself, all pompous, self-important, delusional people and anyone else who takes things too seriously.

living

pop

Gee, what will you watch now to feel part of the cool people?

What do you think true surrealism is? The only surreal episode was the one with Homer in the 3rd dimension.

You complain about television being mainstream. Why do all you cool, intellectual people come down from your pedestals to watch television in the first place? By definition television is for the "great unwashed". And, by your own admissions your are too far above the rest of us for such a banal form of entertainment.

Do you post in other news groups and complain about other shows. Here's a tip! If you don't like something, don't participate in it. And most of you seem to have disliked "The Simpsons" for many years!

Move on! Stop wasting time!

Groening doesn't care about you. Never had.

Find a new false god!

-Bob

While you completely missed the point of what Chris was saying and went nitpicking in moot places and took metaphors literally, i like your last paragraph:

The experiment is over. The Simpsons are not anymore what they started as. And i finally realize i've been putting to much heart into something i can't change anyway. I'll try to ease my pain with Futurama while i still can. After that i'll go and look for a new false god. Know any good ones?

Martin.

Duh! Me so dumb. Me not understand 'cause I'm in a "moot place".

Okay, genius! What was Chris' point? Astound us all!

-Bob

Martin Schl�mer wrote in message news:[email]...

the

by

banal

a

you

Of course, i hadn't really read what Chris wrote, when i posted the first reply. I was just plain drunk and had to yell at someone. Sorry.

It took me a while, but here's what i think _Chris_ said :) (i appologize in advance, since this is going to be a quoting mess)

I. the satire is gone The show starts out as an experiment. The main concept seemed to have been: do something new and refreshing. Satirizing pop culture quickly became one of the most central parts of the show. A part, i guess, we all loved about it. Something like that had not been seen in a cartoon. Chris calls it an anachronism.

But after x seasons the satire is mostly gone and appears to have been substituted with throwaway gags and celebrity guest appearances.

II. a slow process So when did the change take place? There wasn't a clean break. Instead The Simpsons made the move step by step (or rather show by show and season by season).

III. quality of writing The writing had a very high level in the beginning, but became "Standardized. Simplified. Mainstream." (Quote Chris)

Well to sum it up, Chris basically is looking at the same process from there more or less different angles.

Now, Bob, i didn't find anything in your reply about the lack of satire or the development of the show in general. That's why i summed it up, the way i did. On the other hand, was the bottom line of your reply to be read as "it's just fucking entertainment"? Then it certainly would have been completely on topic ;)

about money, it

wasn�t very

Just speak for yourself ;) But of course, you are right, they were in it for the money. _But_ they had the chance of a lifetime to build up something with no rules attached. And that's why i think Chris is right in what he says. The creative people working on the Simpsons were excited about what they were doing. And that shows!

Martin.

Martin Schl�mer wrote in message news:[email]...

I am! Sorry you can't handle my observations.

SO WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

You think that there were no rules attached? If there were no rules, Groening would've done "Life in Hell". God, you're naive!

What's your definition of "creative people". All the people (good or bad) working on "The Simpsons" are creative. They are all working for a salary.

I've worked with artists. They'd all sell out in a heartbeat.

• Bob

And you don't pay attention to interviews: Matt Groening stated more than once, that the only reason, he picked or rather created the Simpsons for the TV show, was that he was afraid, it might be a failure and that would hurt his comic strip. So instead he created something that wasn't directly related to his strip. And as for creative freedom: When you listen to the audio commentary on the Simpsons Season I DVDs i think you'll understand what i mean by "no rules attached". The creative people (defined as "directors, writers and story boarders") had a lot of freedom for experiments. It went as far as the second episode had been produced and during a screening, they suddenly realized that a lot of things, they had done _didn't_ work. And that was the moment the first rules manifested themselves, the first "let's not do that again". But up to then and even after that, they had time to try thing that had never been done for tv animation before. And by the way, i prefer the term "idealistic". :)

Doesn't mean they can't put their hearts into something at the same time...

Martin.

Martin Schl�mer wrote in message news:[email]...

time...

They don't!!! You can believe that or not. You can also continue to listen to bullshit interviews and believe in fairy tales. That's your prerogative.

-Bob

R H Menzel wrote:

Actually, I didn�t want to say anything else in this thread, there�s IMO too little substance. But here we go.

First, you said that Matt Groening doesn�t care about "self-important" people, then you spoke for Matt Groening, maybe trying to say what he said in interviews (I guess you don�t know Matt personally) or what you think he should have said. Everything that backs up your opinion is a good thing, eh?

Now if someone mentions other interviews where people say different things (about enthusiasm and idealism and imagination and the power of human creativity) and things which are not conform to your point of view (which you seem to consider as the only valid point of view) they become simple "bullshit interviews" or maybe "bullshit comments" or "bullshit posts" and so on.

You think you can attack people by claiming that they consider Matt Groening as their false god, but that is a big mistake. The show was that great not because of only Matt but because of all the people who were involved in the very first years, a lot of truly intelligent complexity and greatness of season 2 comes IMO from James Brooks and not from Matt Groening, the greatest elements of character drama and character development come IMO from Jon Vitti and some other writers, thus your argument is pointless (every aggressive argument is IMO pointless)

Matt was important for the show (there is a noticeable decline of quality when he left the show after season 8 to make Futurama) but he wasn�t the only source of greatness. On the other hand, if you have a look on "Futurama" you�ll notice the very sad difference between brilliant F3K masterpieces like "Luck of The Fryish", "Parasites Lost" and "Godfellas" and the dull and sitcomish emptyness of standardized OFF episodes in season 13. Matt was important and he still is important (and I think he knows that the Simpsons are in the dumpster now. I just think he knows but I don�t claim to talk for Matt) but it�s not only him.

I guess it�s pretty useless to say more, all your comments show me that you won�t accept anything else than your own "truth" (<= now that�s sad like X-Files talk, isn�t it ;-)) and your point of view is IMO very closed-minded and a mirror of a cold and unimaginative world.

The true depth of cartoons (especially classic OFF) and the "reality" of cartoon characters is a symbol for the immense power of creativity and for the power of the human mind. If you think every open-minded and idealistic opinion is just sad and "bullshit" then it�s your prerogative.

At least I�m glad that I know a lot of people who think different (you know, all the cool people and "pseudo-intellectuals" who prefer to see more in a cartoon show than others.)

Chris

Hey, Chris! Do you realize how much you contradict yourself, and how much of your faults you project on others? Try to re-read what I wrote (take your time), and try to do so with an open mind.

I know that's hard for teenagers!

-Bob

Wait, he doesn't agree with your point of view so therefore he could only be a teenager?

It's the way he argues that makes me believe that. And the fact that others feel the need to defend him.

BTW, disagreeing with me is not at issue. Recognizing other facts, opinions and observations is. If you can't see that, ..oh, well!

-Bob

Jason Saslow wrote in message news:[email]...

much of

your

Fair enough.

R H Menzel wrote:

Actually, I�m 25. Maybe a little too old to count as a teenager.

Maybe I misunderstood some of the things you said, but I still have the impression that your reaction to people with a more idealistic opinion is a little too aggressive. Your opinion (like any opinion) is subjective but you call other people naive, relying on "bullshit" interviews, considering Matt Groening as a false god and the show as some substitute religion etc etc and I think that�s a little too generalized.

It�s like Jake said - I have a pretty idealistic opinion and you have a down-to-earth opinion (good way to sum it up in a single line.) He also said we are both right and wrong in a certain way and I can live with that.

I don�t know whether you have read some of my classic episode reviews I posted here (for example http://members.aol.com/Chris84792/bust.htm and many others on my website) but it�s very useful to have a more idealistic and imaginative opinion about the show to write such stuff.

It would be very little fun if I would think "It�s only about money-making, it has no meaning" all the time while writing such reviews and analysis, so a more "naive" and imaginative opinion can be productive in a certain way. I hope you will agree here.

Maybe contrary to some of the things I say, I consider the show as nothing but a hobby. It�s no false god, no substitute religion. It�s just a hobby but a hobby I take sometimes very serious (too serious?) and so do many other people and I think you shouldn�t call them naive and probably teenagers who know nothing about real life and reality. I think I have enough experience in life to know things, but it doesn�t stop me from being idealistic and see more in a cartoon show than others (I even know some artists who write or do art just for creative reasons.)

BTW, I didn�t ask Martin to defend me (he was drunk ;-)) and I think some of his arguments (like the one about "no rules") were incorrect or at least written in a misunderstandable way.

To come to an end - we have different opinions and see things in a very different way. I guess it�s much more easy to enjoy recent OFF episodes and seasons with such a down-to-earth opinion but it can be pretty painful if you have a more idealistic opinion about the show.

Chris

Chris Pfeiler wrote in message news:[email]...

of

OOPS!

a

You're not the first to say that!

Your opinion (like any opinion) is subjective but you

Interviews are bullshit because the interviewee is trying to press a point, play the game. I don't trust what people say. I believe in what they do, and did!

religion etc etc and I think that�s a little too generalized.

Yes it is. Generally, the posters argue like scholars interpreting the Torah. In order words...religiously!

Yes...yes it is!

with that.

We really don't have a choice, do we? :o)

posted

others on

money-making, it

more

you

I agree that it would be fun, but productive? What do you wish to produce?

Pardon me if I sound confrontational. I am! It's what makes me good at my job.

but

As I've stated, many others do treat it as their "religion" whether they want to admit to it or not.

It�s just a hobby but a

Serious...ly!

and so do many other people

If people reject opposing opinions outright, and by into anything that supports their own opinions, then they are naive and behave as teenagers.

in a

just for

I'd really like to meet one. I'd also like to see Bigfoot!

I didn't think so.

(he was drunk ;-)) and I think some of

Seemed clear to me!

This is true. I have a completely different view of "Brave New World". (Very pragmatic, and unidealistic....to say the least!)

you

If you stop having preconceived notions about things, you'll be able to see the world for what it truly is.

-Bob

"R H Menzel" wrote in message news:...

You can argue/debate a point without worshipping it.

Nothing tangible has been produced, but good tv 'produces' good discussion. (Although, I haven't been around here much the past three years, so I'm not to sure how much good discussion takes place!)

I think "Cult" is a better word. Someone once said best that "Cults" are: "When not enough people get together to be considered a minority."

I'm one of the 1 percent you mentioned a few posts back who likes to create for the sake of creating. My site, www.maggieanderic.com is a for-fun site and what I do for a living has nothing to do with art. (I own part of a restaraunt franchise)

Problem is, being human negates the true ability to look at things 100 percent objectively. Anyone who watches the show for a period of time is going to have a veiwpoint on what he/she expects when they watch a new episode. The difference between Chris and Bob, is Chris takes the show to heart and likes to discuss the finer points of Simpsondom while Bob (seems) to enjoy the show, but to him it's just a show: albeit a very good show.

Jake

Jake Lennington wrote in message news:[email]...

news:...

substitute

so a

hope

What have you contributed to the discussion? Or do you lump yourself in with the rest of us?

nothing

Don't people in cults worship something?

There are millions of self-proclaimed artists in the U.S. They are not a cult nor do they qualify as a minority. The quote is cute, but vague.

more

By artists I mean those who studied, practiced, worked for, and wish to make a living at some form of art. The rest are hobbyists, albeit some with talent. I've nursed some animals back to health. That doesn't make me a veterinarian.

BTW, I'm adding your site to my favorites to check out at my leisure. You may check out my site www.arts4u.org/menzel then check out the site www.arts4u.org and check out some of the others.

if

see

That's one of my points!!!

Jake, don't assume anything. I get all(well, almost all) of the references, etc. I just don't find it as deep. or as cutting edge as others find it. I enjoy it for being well written and well produced. But deep? One can read anything into anything, if you try hard enough. One can express opinions and call them facts. Whatever floats one's boat, and makes one feel as if they are special and deep!

-Bob

"R H Menzel" wrote in message news:...

You can argue/debate a point without worshipping it.

Nothing tangible has been produced, but good tv 'produces' good discussion. (Although, I haven't been around here much the past three years, so I'm not to sure how much good discussion takes place!)

I think "Cult" is a better word. Someone once said best that "Cults" are: "When not enough people get together to be considered a minority."

I'm one of the 1 percent you mentioned a few posts back who likes to create for the sake of creating. My site, www.maggieanderic.com is a for-fun site and what I do for a living has nothing to do with art. (I own part of a restaraunt franchise)

Problem is, being human negates the true ability to look at things 100 percent objectively. Anyone who watches the show for a period of time is going to have a veiwpoint on what he/she expects when they watch a new episode. The difference between Chris and Bob, is Chris takes the show to heart and likes to discuss the finer points of Simpsondom while Bob (seems) to enjoy the show, but to him it's just a show: albeit a very good show.

Jake

"R H Menzel" wrote in message news:...

You can argue/debate a point without worshipping it.

Nothing tangible has been produced, but good tv 'produces' good discussion. (Although, I haven't been around here much the past three years, so I'm not to sure how much good discussion takes place!)

I think "Cult" is a better word. Someone once said best that "Cults" are: "When not enough people get together to be considered a minority."

I'm one of the 1 percent you mentioned a few posts back who likes to create for the sake of creating. My site, www.maggieanderic.com is a for-fun site and what I do for a living has nothing to do with art. (I own part of a restaraunt franchise)

Problem is, being human negates the true ability to look at things 100 percent objectively. Anyone who watches the show for a period of time is going to have a veiwpoint on what he/she expects when they watch a new episode. The difference between Chris and Bob, is Chris takes the show to heart and likes to discuss the finer points of Simpsondom while Bob (seems) to enjoy the show, but to him it's just a show: albeit a very good show.

Jake

[email] (Chris Pfeiler) wrote in message news:...

Okay, here's some words about Futurama from Matt Groening:

"As I get older, I'm becoming more interested in feelings [sic] and how people relate to eachother. Futurama contains so much fantasy and surrealism, it is of little personal intrest to me." -- From the May/June issue of AARP (or another 'old people' magazine) The article even goes on to state that Matt Groening hasn't been involved with the day to day production process of Futurama since mid-2000, too.

Chris, the problem between you and R.H. is simply you have a very idealistic view of the show--or what the show SHOULD be. R.H. seems to be a very down-to earth person who sees the Simpsons as a big-money making venture which doesn't really have much hidden meaning. The problem is you are both right and wrong. Having ideas, ideals and experimenting are how TV shows come into this world--it's the making a profit that keeps them going.

"Martin Schl�mer" wrote in message news:[email]...

They say this Jesus dude has got some good shit going on.

"R H Menzel" wrote in message news:...

If you think about it, OFF was a throwaway that became famous. MG stated he created the original scribblings based of memebers of his family in 15 minutes so he could give Fox something else other than his Life in Hell strips. From the get go, OFF was something that if it flopped would've been a 'so what?'. If it failed, Life in Hell wouldn't have been tarnished and it everyone could've called it a day...

This really wasn't a 'sacrifice', it was more of a crapshoot which became immensely popular.

Which because the show was a fad for the first two years, NOT because there was any serious planning for any merchandise in 1988.

Had the show premiered on ABC, NBC, or CBS, it wouldn't have lasted past season 2.

I agree with you on how the the show isn't any more above pop culture, but OFF changed the attitudes on television much like how the alternative/grunge changed the sound in music in the early 90's from that damn 80's pop sound. OFF gave the non reality a bit more reality. The "reality mixed with 'non-reality'", when mixed correctly, is very engrossing, enriching television--something which comes along very rarely. Some people miss this 'correct' mix and say stuff like:

I think the show would rather have fans 'who take things too seriously' than have no fans at all.

I'll agree that "useless" is a smelly word, I do concur that show has changed, but it no longer is a 'serious' comedy with empathy (although this season has been better, IMO).

I don't mind surrealism as long as it is funny, but I cannot stand it when the show continues to make fun of itself. It's like I want to yell at the screen: "Enough with the self-reffs, I know you're not real!".

Well, the Simpsosn has attracted a lot of attention as being the 'best written show on TV'. Hell, some collegs even offer courses using the Simpsons as the hook to get students to learn about modern pop-culture. (You don't see the University of Michigan offering classes on "Everybody loves Raymond"!)

If he didn't care, he wouldn't have written what he wrote. It's like having bad breath--unless you tell someone, their breath is going to keep on stinking. Heck, Al Jean even admitted he agreed with "some" of the senitments expressed on the net, most of which was about Homer's characterization over the past few years.

Being a fan of the Simpsons is no more of a 'hobby' than building model cars, or collecting baseball cards. The show is no more of a 'false god' than a model of a Vector or the next rookie of the year.

Jake

Jake Lennington wrote in message news:[email]...

news:...

early

goes

of

what

pompous,

of

one

the

by

banal

a

you

Hey, a whole-thought out response! Just three replies are needed. One) by "sacrificing virgins" I meant (in an albeit flippant way) Groening is just a guy who wants to make money. His art isn't ART. It's just art. If it was just about making art, he'd sit in his house and create. (BTW, I am the executive director of an arts group and have talked to hundreds of artists. 99% of artists love money more than creating art.) Point two) Surrealism is a specific term. It has been corrupted to include anything out of the ordinary. In the true sense of the word ,the movie "Steppenwolf" is surreal, whereas "A Clockwork Orange" and "The Matrix" are not. Point three) Agreed! Most people do take "The Simpsons" as a hobby. I collect the figures and environments... for fun. But a few people (and it seems most of the posters in this ng) take it way too seriously, and elevate it to the stature of "false godhood".

-Bob

R H Menzel wrote

To reply just in short:

What I meant to say is: today they would do almost anything to keep the show running, not because of enthusiasm but because of money and merchandise and profit. It�s much more controlled by ratings and by a huge industry now and that�s one reason why the show stopped being so free and free-spirited..

Today, they try to produce as many episodes as possible, cram as many slapstickish jokes and silly and obvious references and obvious in-your-face pseudo-satire into the episodes. They want to make the show last, but not for the show itself and the old idea but for money.

Back in the early years, it was enthusiasm and it was an experiment. Read some of the old interviews and articles from 1990 to see that. It wasn�t just simply "a new show" on TV (that is rarely experimental as most shows are just copies of former ideas) but a new concept of show and entertainment and deep satire, of a cartoon show that appealed to adults as well (like I said) and that�s made it much much more experimental.

Back in the old days, they made the show to create a very special thing (and making a few bucks while you�re at it ;-)) but today they make the show because the FOX executives and the industry demands it. The industry demands a show with many viewers, a tame show, a mass compatible show, a show that sells and - at least for OFF - that�s sad.

The ratings are way up now. Why? Because the show has become so very good? Or because they made it more conform to the mass market of mainstream TV industry?

Have you read my post about the difference between "Homerpalooza" and "New Kids"? There�s a way to be famous but nevertheless to keep the ability to satirize society and pop culture, to be good enough to stay above the line.

There�s a huge (a very huge) difference between satirizing pop culture in a deeper way and adapting almost 100% to pop culture to please N�Sync fans.

I guess you haven�t read my definition of surrealism on the show. What do you think makes Homer in the 3rd dimension the only truly surreal episode ? Why is "Mysterious Voyage" with Homer�s "Altered States" chili trip no real surrealism to you? Why is great "Bart Sells His Soul" with its abstraction of the soul concept no surrealism to you? Don�t you see the difference between cartoonishness and true meaningful surrealism?

I guess you haven�t read any serious book about the show, the word "surrealism" is used very often there to explain deeper concepts. But why should you read a serious book? All the people who see anything more than a funny and wacky cartoon in the show are just sad and a little crazy, aren�t they? Seems very closed-minded to me.

So why do you think you can speak for Matt? Matt would say that. Matt would say this. Matt would say "You nitpickers stink". Matt doesn�t care about you. You complain about serious and self-important people, yet you try to talk for Matt Groening himself and to tell people what they should do and that they should move on, just because they have a different and maybe more complex opinion than you.

Matt wanted to make satire - true satire - about life and society, not a simple and superficial cartoon show, so why do you think he would laugh about people who take the show more serious than others and who try to interpret satirical messages? Why were all those deep and hidden elements there in the first place?

Matt wrote in the OFF guide that "the show rewards you for paying attention". Sounds that as if he doesn�t care for serious people?

Well, to come to an end. All you wrote in this thread has IMO one message "Guys, it�s just a simple cartoon show, so let�s don�t care."

And that�s IMO - if I may use a quote from Josh Fredman, who said it best - a slap in the face to human ingenuity. "It�s is neither unsavory nor unreasonable to commend our arts forms, including animation, for their richness of content."

You may find that all sad and crazy and like trekkie talk, but that�s your opinion. It�s fine to me, no problem, but you should accept other opinions and deeper insights as well.

Chris

Oh, .....and you are the one with deep insights!?

Sorry you couldn't handle the criticism you asked for. I guess you only wanted opinions that backed up your pseudo-intellectualism.

-Bob

Chris Pfeiler wrote in message news:[email]...

show

and

and

in-your-face

for

some

simply

copies

satire,

made

(and

because

show

and -

Or

industry?

line.

a

one

you

Why is

surrealism

soul

"surrealism"

more

crazy,

would say

You

Matt

should

than

simple

people

satirical

place?

attention".

best - a

unreasonable

content."

and

R H Menzel wrote:

I didn�t say that. I try to have some insights and I appreciate people who try to see more in the show than others.

Not at all. I�m interested in every opinion, that�s why I asked (that�s why I ask in most of my posts) and I was interested in your opinion as well. I just pointed out that I don�t agree with some of the things you said, but I respect your opinion as much as any other opinion.

Chris

show running, not because of enthusiasm but because of money and merchandise and profit. It�s much more controlled by ratings and by a huge industry now and that�s one reason why the show stopped being so free and free-spirited.. Today, they try to produce as many episodes as possible, cram as many slapstickish jokes and silly and obvious references and obvious in-your-face pseudo-satire into the episodes. They want to make the show last, but not for the show itself and the old idea but for money.<<<<<

You seem to be making some pretty audacious statements about the intensions and motivations of the shows producers. Do you have any facts, articles or first hand knowledge to back these claims up?.

What if the changes in the show's tone si simply a result of the producers, writer's preferences for humor? . after all a number of the people that drove to the show to greatness no longer work on it. (and in the case of Conan O'Brien and Brad Bird.. ...have gone on to bigger and better things)

and How is the show less free spirited now then it was in the early seasons?.. is is that the show is suddenly less of a free spirit?. or is it that the show is so much of a free spirit that it has since moved along a new unbeaten path that simply no longer conforms to your particular tastes

Groening has stated in a recent interview that he and the staff of the show want to keep surprising themselves and the viewers. Well SURPRISE!!!!.

I'm playing a bit of Devil's advocate here (and not the pinball version). I detest the new Simpsons and long for the days when it WAS "the best written show on TV" and had that wonderfully layered humor,

But the above quoted statements sound like the same tired rants we hear about every piece of entertainment that no longer appeals to someone

The only people that know for sure why the show has changed are the ones responsible for the changes.. and they aren't talking

Hobbesgy wrote:

Not really, they won�t write that in articles. It�s a personal impression (and not only mine) and a good explanation for why the show has become what it is but is still running. There are a few and IMO well-written articles about the show�s decline, but most of todays articles simply praise the show. However, look into these articles and you�ll notice that they praise the show but mostly use episodes from seasons 1 to 8 to back up all their praise. So why is that?

I can at least back up my claims with what the show has become, a show that backs away from serious social and satirical comments and from every truly radical content for many years now, a show that mostly gave up relying on the viewers intelligence and instead tells them what to think and so on and so on.

However, it still airs and is promoted and merchandised and that�s what gives me my own impression about the motivations and intentions of the shows producers (without facts).

I wonder how a show that adapts more and more to pop culture and to the normal rules of everyday-cartoon-writing can be free-spirited any longer. It�s of course a problem of being no longer conform to particular tastes (and being conform to much more other tastes) but that brings us back to the old problem of mass-market orientation to save the ratings. In addition, it�s not only my particular taste. Why are there people (and no small number) who - from all 13 seasons - only consider the first 3 seasons as true OFF seasons?

To me, there isn�t much surprise in new episodes. Homer will do this, Homer will do that, Homer will have some wacky new job, Homer will get in trouble, Lisa will get in trouble (but don�t tell the viewers that we air a Lisa episode, lousy boring nerd�s bad for the ratings, just show them some Bart show promotion) and so on.

If the surprise is, that a Simpsons episode feels now like a WB cartoon, then it�s a pretty bad surprise. A truly imaginative episode with good ideas, with a working plotline, an episode that stirs emotions beside humor - that would be a surprise. Maybe the only S13 episode close to surprise was "Little Girl in the Big Ten".

What else should I say? The rants are always the same old ones.

And that�s why I can�t back up my claims with facts, just with impression.

Chris

[email] (Chris Pfeiler) wrote in message news:...

One of the ex-animators of the show stated on another message board that the writers (aka bosses) decided to change the overall tone of the show around 1997-98. Why? Because they were worried the show's long-term fans were going to start abandoning the series after being loyal viewers since the Ullman shorts. Thusly, they made the show more 'slapstick' and sight-gagged based to lure in the kids who were outgrowing Pokemon to replace the potential "lost viewer". Notice how ("jerkass") Homer and his buffoonery began around around that period, even before Scully took over?

Chris provokes our thoughts:

That's easy. It's because, when a cult hit or slow starter goes mainstream, the people who were there first get all persnickity and start insisting that the only "good" episodes were the old ones - the ones the n00bs haven't seen. Then they spend the next ten years (or whatever) moaning about how much their once-favorite show sucks.

Of course, this is all just my impression, but I've participated in these feelings from both the "Go 'way, I never wanted my secret out" and the "Move over, Grandpa" sides and this is what I've observed. I don't find this debate to be very productive, since the old-schoolers aren't going to change their minds, and the n00bs are only going to support the show more zealously, and possibly unfairly. Is that what you want? People supporting the newer, sucky Simpsons because their pride has been challenged?

My advice to the old-schoolers is: if you really can't stand the show, for God's sake stop watching it! Take a break from it. Watch something else for a while, come back in a season and see if maybe you weren't a little hasty, or if you're even still interested. When X-Files got boring for me, I started watching Twin Peaks, which spared me the trauma of XF's *real* downward slide. My recommendations for Simpsons fans are Duckman, The Tick, The Critic, and maybe South Park.

What about "Jaws Wired Shut" or "She of Little Faith" or "Half Decent Proposal?" I actually liked a fair number of eps from this season. It was, IMO, a big improvement on season 12, which has got to be the worst to date: tons of unfunny guest appearances, tons of random stupidity, lack of respect for the characters and character development - did I miss anything? That season 13 was better than both 11 and 12 should be giving everyone hope.

Yes. Yes, they are. Why bother reiterating them and alienating the new fans?

--Anna

Anna wrote:

I never said that I can�t stand the show any longer, I just said that it�s no longer what it used to be, namely excellent and complex character-related satire. It lost that ability when it "hit the ground" (like I said) and fell into the line of mainstream writing.

I agree, it was an improvement to the Scully years. Maybe "Little Girl" wasn�t the only surprise, but it was at least the biggest surprise while too many S13 episodes prefered to fall into line and copied ideas from S11/S12. I said some things about S13 in my reply to Abman�s reviews, even some friendly things.

Chris

Chris replies:

I'm sorry if that all came off as a rant against you (it wasn't), but I'm still not clear as to why anyone would watch a show they apparently no longer enjoy. I do agree that the characters should drive the show; That's the best type of humor there is, IMO. I don't see where the writing couldn't improve, though. Granted, in 13 years we've learned so much about so many of the cast members there's maybe not much left to find out, but I'm sure talented writers could pull it off and bring back the satire.

[email] (Anna) wrote in message news:...

The Simpsons has always been mainstream. The show was made to appeal a broad range of people so that it could be profitable. However, the only difference between the older episodes and the newer episodes, is the newer (mostly Mike Scully produced, Al Jean has been doing the show at near season 1-7 quality, IMO) episodes lack empathy for the characters--meaning the writers have made the characters far less likeable than before. They take the characters for granted, so they write for the show like: "Hey, everyone knows who Marge is, so we don't need to support her character in this plot!".

The old-schoolers want a show where you can laugh with the characters, not laugh AT the characters. All these excuses about the realism, relateability, Homer being a jerkass, etc., are all offshoots of this core problem.

because >theirpride has been challenged?

I don't care what other people want. It should be commone sense, at least to some folks who like the Simpsons for its rep at the best written show, to understand the cardinal rule of the show--nay ANY show--is to have characters you care enough about so you can 'get in' to a plot with. Otherwise, with no plot and nothing but attempted humor, you're left with a book of Yo' Mama! jokes.

Here's a logical fallacy--either I must luvvvv the show and praise it to heaven, or I must be on some crusade to bring it down. Yeah, right. Can't I have an opinion that's somewhere in the middle?

Newsgroups have always been about expressing opinions, so if these folk's thoughts are too desparaging, stop coming here.

Or, stop watching TV and get some fresh air.

I agree. S13 has been a big upswing from the Scully administration. The show has been nearly enjoyable this past season as anything from the first seven seasons.

If these 'new fans' have an issue with what someone else says, then it's their problem.

Jake

Jake spouts:

I'm very impressed that you don't care about others - how bold. But as your reply has nothing to do with what I wrote, let me break it down for you. NewFan posts: "The Simpsons is good." OldFan posts: "You flaming retard! The show isn't half of what it once was!" NewFan thinks: "Rrr! I must defend the show with my life to prove I am not a flaming retard!"

See why this isn't conducive to real debate?

Obviously you can have an opinion that's somewhere in the middle. What you should NOT be doing is hating the show and continuing to watch it anyway. My reasoning here is that if you spend more time complaining about the show than enjoying it, there's no point to watching anymore - unless you're holding out in case it gets better, hence my advice about watching some other show.

So they get to express their opinions, but I should just leave. Your theory is what, that anybody who disagrees with anybody else should keep their mouth shut?

Oh, but I digress. You were talking about logical fallacies...? Or maybe it was hypocrisy.

Are you just arguing just for the sake of arguing? Sure, have some fresh air! I'm not against it!

Yes, that would be why I posted. Maybe you'd like to try again, and actually read what I've written before replying.

[email] (Anna) wrote in message news:...

Anna thustly responds:

If you'd quit arguing from the point of trying to perpetuate a stereotype, you would've understood what I wrote.

Thanks. We love the conceren you've expressed, but there are people who have reseverations about some aspects of the show--but do not HATE it. The problem is you can't seem to tell the difference.

Wrong again. I almost gave up on the show back--you know, stopped watching-- in 2000 when different folks were running it. When they left, it became better.

My point which you missed, again, is the people who come here have an opinion on the SHOW. You and your ilk have a "trying to be everyone's mother" attitude on the PEOPLE who come here--which doesn't leave any room for a real conversation and/or debate, which seem so strongly for.

And you're calling me hypocritical?

Jake

Jake writes:

You're right. My ilk and I should really stop that stereotyping.

Perhaps my messages aren't displaying correctly for you. Did you see that whole sentence after "unless," where I explained exactly what you just said?

1) I never had an issue with anyone personally, only with how and what they write. And you are doing exactly the same thing by arguing with me about how and what I write. 2) Who says I can't have an opinion on the people who come here? I have an opinion on you.

Look, the point is that the way in which some people criticize the show is unnecessarily harsh, and that is not good for debate because it makes other people defensive. It's an observation, not a commandment.

Anna-

Most of the posters here believe they are arguing actual facts, not their own personal opinions.

They dislike any observation, fact or opinion that does not jive with their world.

If you hold up the mirror, and they do not like what they see, they'll blame you for not using a proper mirror.

-Bob

Anna wrote in message news:[email]...

Jake Lennington wrote in message news:[email]...

news:...

This speaks volumes!!!!

Tell me, who are you that we should care what you think?

It should be commone sense, at

Can't others have opinions without having self-important ravers expousing their opinions. Of course, the real reason for this ranting is not to express opinion, but to declare one's superiority over those who are too stupid to understand what the "Simpsons" is supposed to be. ;O)

O-o-o! Confrontational, aren't we!? What happened to the freedom to express one's opinion. Oh, right! You beleive in the freedom to express YOUR opinion.

-Bob

"R H Menzel" wrote in message news:...

Yep!

I'm another person here, just like you.

Opinions, yes. Demands disguised as opinions like: "If you don't like, stop watching it!", no, or better yet, if they choose to talk that way, at least start each message: "I demand you...". (I understand the irony that I'm doing the same thing in this somewhat in this message, so don't bother pointing it out.)

("Be?" You mean a show with endearing characters, which has a long life, and be profitable?) Like I've said a few times already: if people don't like my 'superiorty rants', TOUGH!

Exactly. Nothing like restating the obvious to garner support for your side!

Jake

Jake Lennington wrote in message news:[email]...

news:...

expousing

express

My side!? I have a side?

Since you are apparently a very sensitive person (not to others, of course) let me say I'm sorry that I offended you by suggesting (not demanding - there is a difference) anything to you.

Oh, one last observation: You have a need to yell "Evo! Evo!"

-Bob

"R H Menzel" wrote in message news:...

Well ALL have a viewpoint (aka side)to express in this place. People don't come here for the sake of coming here. They have opinions to express--no matter how off-topic, or 'demanding' they choose to be, including me. Also, having myself once been a casual fan, show defender (then a 'hardcore, CBGesque fan'), fanfictionist, and now back to casual fan, I can honestly say that I do not subscribe to the bias of my choice because of ignorance concerning the opposing point of view.

The Pattie's (Pattie: [pointing] Hey, Someone's not laughing!) LOVE to suggest I'm such a party pooper and should 'give up on the show'. But guess what--The notion that the Simpsons is a show that is a completely objective thing is thus an unrealistic�albeit pretty�picture foisted on the NG by those who believe Groenings's creation is somehow infallible and beyond all criticism.

Thank you for your frank�and frankly derisive�feedback.

Jake

On 31 May 2002 14:32:40 GMT, [email] (Chris Pfeiler) wrote:

Well, keep in my mind that the greatest 'crappy merchandising' seemed to arise in this era - it's as if we have a rebirth of what you lament over disappearing these days.

Note that Butterfinger gag, "even the fire doesn't want them..." I hope we get only more and more of this.

I liked that, to an extent, though...

I'm not sure if there was really a connection with the ratings - were there? If anything, I thought they had fallen...

Yeah, it just creeps up on you, and then BAM!

TTYL