Didn't see this one coming, honest, but during the fight between Willie and Seamus, Seamus says 'bastid' at him.... blanked out by $KY Wan, of course. Like they did to Bender last week.
They're also showing them way out of order, as per usual.... they missed out about 3.....
Lame, as usual.
^_^
Does it really matter if they show the Simpsons out of order? It's not as if the episodes have to be viewed in a particular order for them to make sense. It made sense for Sky to show that episode this week as Sky One were launching a block of new seasons of Family Guy and King of the Hill. As yesterday's Simpsons had an animation theme then it was a nice bit of scheduling on the part of Sky.
as
were
And also tied in with the current 'Spiderman' hype...
"David Brunt" wrote in message news:...
But didn't the episode debut in the US well before it?
CL
Phil Hughes wrote in message news:B94F2612.2374C%[email]...
Yes. They'd never dare to do that with their darling shows like E.R. and Fri- oh wait, they're gone.
Besides, remember when Maude died and was in another new episode a few weeks later? That's what happens when you screw around with the order.
^_-
"Jedah And Sonans" wrote in message news:agdj1o$4vt$[email]...
Because they regularly follow on from one another and have long-running story-arcs.
weeks
A very rare occurance in the world of The Simpsons. Most episodes are completely standalone, and seeing Maude in a later episode hardly makes any difference at all. Like I said, they're basically all standalone episodes.
Unless there is some character development or an ongoing story that I am unaware of in the Simpsons, then I can't see any reason why they have to be shown in any particular order. And as if to illustrate my point, Fox release compilation themed tapes of the Simpsons containing episodes from random points throughout the entire run.
The Maude example is a very rare occurence, and rarely is there such a major event like that which affects the rest of the series.
If it hadn't been pointed out that last Sunday's episode had been shown out of sequence I doubt anyone would have realised it.
From: "Jedah And Sonans"
I'd say your mind was playing tricks on you there...
Although there was some out-of-order screening at the beginning and end of that run ('Behind the Laughter' was brought forward for a 'New Season on Sky' day) the middle of that season where Maude died was shown in the original US order.
Which episode was she supposed to have made a reappearance?
David
In article , [email] says...
I'd like to know whether they'll show those that they've missed out, and why are they dragging out the new episodes when the series has long since ended in the US?
Sky show on average 2 new episodes a month so that they can spread them out through the year. New episodes of the Simpsons are among the top rated shows on Sky.
"Phil Hughes" wrote in message news:B95111DC.24037%[email]...
out
why
ended in
out
Also even though Flameing moes and dancin homer are in the early series of the simpsons why did bbc 2 not show them for years and years after they showed those early seasons?(unless for some reason i miraulousely missed every time they showed those 2 episodes , which would be odd)
the BBC don't do that too much any more... just before they got Season 6, they were showing just Seasons 4 and 5 over and over and over, but there were one or two episodes that they always skipped over, such as "A Streetcar Named Marge."
Strangely, though, they showed the ast two episodes of Season 3 as part of Season 4 for some reason.
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, an infinite number of monkeys, masquerading as Phil Hughes typed this -
Not just 'among'. Since they lost Friends, they *are* the top rated show on Sky (though Buffy comes close).
First, I am allowed the odd spelling mistake, but at least I try, unlike many on the internet and newsgroups. It's pathetic to use that as a way of bumping up your comment. Now, Hang your head in shame.
There are other shows shown on Sky, and they have viewers too. Therefore, The simpsons *are* amoung Sky's top rated. Unless the only show that has viewers is The Simpsons then your comment is meaningless.
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, an infinite number of monkeys, masquerading as Phil Hughes typed this -
What are you talking about? I wasn't posting a spelling flame - I *never* do that!
OK, I will concede your point (but you did misspell 'among' *this* time - sorry couldn't resist it). :)
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, an infinite number of monkeys, masquerading as Phil
Or that's what they'd have us believe. Remember, $KY Wan built itself on the following shows...
Star Trek: All they have now is Enterprise. Ooooh dear.... DUD X-Files: Went lame. DUD The Simpsons: Only show still drawing it in. Friends: Got bought out. E.R.: Got bought out. $KY Wan original programming: Two words baby: The Strangerers! LOL!
So really they only have Buffy TVS as well, which they treat just as badly as The Simpsons. $KY really have no idea about suitable time slots do they? Buffy before the watershed, Family Guy at 5:30?!?! Only Channel 4 manage to be worse....
In article , [email] says...
I know, and repeats get higher ratings than new eps of most other shows.
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, an infinite number of monkeys, masquerading as Dom Robinson typed this -
You'd think they'd shown them so often now that people would get sick of them.
I think that Sky One should be ashamed that their most watched show is something as endlessly repeated as The Simpsons. OTOH if it weren't for the occasional Simpsons episode I wouldn't watch Sky One.
Andrue Cope [Brackley, UK]
"Andrue Cope" wrote in message news:[email]...
I think the 11 ocklock showeing is wringing the towel a bit.
In article , [email] says...
If people didn't watch it, they wouldn't screen it.
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, an infinite number of monkeys, masquerading as Andrue Cope typed this -
I've stopped watching Simpsons on Sky One except for new episodes, since I have every episode on tape/DVD now.
I mostly watch the BBC2 shows. Even though they are still repeats the lack of adverts makes them more watchable.
Andrue Cope [Brackley, UK]
"Andrue Cope" wrote in message news:[email]...
but when it moves to channel four...
Yah - OTOH I'm hoping that C4 won't put quite as long a break in :)
Andrue Cope [Brackley, UK]
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, an infinite number of monkeys, masquerading as CCS typed this -
What about Enterprise & Angel? :)
Paul Hyett wrote in message news:[email]...
Woah woah, Angel has viewers?!?!? It was scheduled to go head to head with the 'almighty' Friends on e4, fer gawds sake!!!
As for Enterprise, I'll pass. Too easy. :)
^_^
On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 13:47:33 +0000 (UTC), "Jedah And Sonans" wrote:
Not a problem - Friends was repeated the next day.
On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, an infinite number of monkeys, masquerading as Jedah And Sonans typed this -
It did struggle somewhat, the viewing figures didn't increase by as much as Buffy's did.
That's the reason that I won't buy the DVD sets
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, an infinite number of monkeys, masquerading as Phil Hughes typed this -
I buy them partly since the quality is far better than home taping, and also because Sky One often cut bits out. The DVD special features are nice too.
Dom Robinson wrote in message news:[email]...
out
why
ended in
It's the simple fact that SKY HAS NOTHING TO SHOW, so they always stretch The Simpsons seasons out for as long as possible. It sucks, I mean I can understand how they have to do it when they have none left to show because Fox hasn't aired them yet (yeah I know Fox stretches it out too, but most seasons of US TV are like that IIRC) but sitting on the rest of the season and not showing them because a) they have nothing once this season ends, or b) they're waiting for some other thing to come along that nobody will watch like the start of the new series of Dream Team, and tag a new episode or 2 in front of it to try and get people to watch it.
Considering that it's their number 1 show, $ky sure do F*ck with The Simpsons.
^_^
Remember when Dream Team took over the 6:30 time slot? Sky set up us the BOMB, indeed.
^_^
"Dom Robinson" wrote in message news:[email]...
out
why
ended in
<snip obnoxious sig>
Perhaps they do it in the hope of attracting people to watch more repeats in the hope that they'll see a new episode. I know I occasionally check the simpsons to see if I've seen the episode before, and occasionally I settle for watching a repeat.
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, an infinite number of monkeys, masquerading as Joe Matthews typed this -
I'd have thought most regular Sky Simpsons fans will have learned long ago that new episodes *only* air at 6.30pm on Sundays.
"Paul Hyett" wrote in message news:xVe2TKC$[email]...
in
But they don't *only* air new episodes at 6:30pm on Sunday - there are older episodes too. Either way, most people will be more concerned with sitting down and watching The Simpsons, in the hope that it will be a new episode, so my point still stands.
I think I have seen a couple of the latest series on in the week though, anyway, but I'm not completely sure.
In article , [email] says...
Only when they are no longer 'new' episodes.
they are repeats. the new episodes were shown at 18.30 on a Sunday, and are repeated before the Season is over. look at David McCormick's regular posting of the UK schedules.
In article , [email] says...
The new ones are always on a Sunday at 6.30
such as Apu being married and having eight kids, skinner and krebapple together, kirk and luann divorced perhaps????
... and worst of all, Barney still drinking coffee! They've completely destroyed his character doing that.
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, an infinite number of monkeys, masquerading as Scott Vivian typed this -
They screwed up with that storyline.
Having him sober for an episode worked, but then they realised they painted themselves into a corner - having him go back on the booze would attract massive criticism from AA and other groups, so they were stuck.
In article , [email] says...
Have I missed an episode somewhere? When did Barney suddenly swap alcohol for coffee long-term? I remember the ep which ended with Barney allegedly drinking 6 cups of mocha whatever it was in a row because Moe had filled them with alcohol (the ep where Barney flew a helicopter with Homer hanging off in order to save Bart and Lisa at the top of a burning tree)
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:24:00 +0100, Dom Robinson wrote:
I'm still gonna dispute that. We never saw Moe put anything in it, and he had a regular espresso cart. I think Barney is just addicted to java now. In subsequent episodes, we see him drinking coffee at Moe's, and not acting drunk.
There was the very recent episode ("The Sweetest Apu" I think) were Homer convinces him that one drink won't cause anything to happen. Barney takes a drink... and nothing happens.
In article , [email] says...
Why else would Moe have laughed as he saw Barney getting addicted?
I'll have to watch that one again as I don't remember that.
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 17:41:40 +0100, Dom Robinson wrote:
Barney didn't get away from him. Beer, coffee, whatever keeps Barney under his spell.
Because he was upset that Barney had quit drinking, ruining his business. Now Barney drinks coffee, so Moe set up an expresso cart to regain his business from Barney.
There was no hint that Moe put alcohol in the coffee, and anyway, Homer drank the coffee and added alcohol, so it was obviously non-alcoholic.
In article , [email] says...
That's not obvious at all.
It's obvious to me. Maybe some people need it spelt out to them. Here's how the scene went:
Homer tried the coffee, for some reason he didn't seem to know what coffee was (he asked "what's this called?"). He then said, IIRC, that it was nice, humouring Barney, and then proceeded to add his own alcohol (in one of those proper alcohol flask things) when Barney wasn't looking.
Then Barney drank some coffee (not the one with the alcohol in it), then more and more and more... he then went *a bit* like he was when he was drunk, then the episode ended with Moe and the coffee cart thing.
The joke was that Barney is now addicted to caffeine and not alcohol. Maybe they'll do an episode when he goes to "Caffeine Anonymous." ;-)
In article , [email] says...
Homer just added MORE alcohol to it. That's my theory. So there is still alcohol in it.
"Dom Robinson" wrote in message news:[email]...
[email]
Homer
non-alcoholic.
how
coffee
nice,
those
what would be the point of that? look, you know you're wrong, why not just admit it instead of digging yourself in deeper?
In article , [email] says...
Only you are of the opinion that Barney no longer drinks alcohol. Someone else in this thread said that they got the impression that Moe had laced the coffee with alcohol too, given by his very presence near the coffee stand.
If it was coffee alone that Barney was drinking, why bring Moe into it at all?
Dom Robinson wrote in message news:[email]...
[email]
else
coffee
What logic! Since there was one other person who thinks Moe might have laced the coffee, you declare all others believe it. And, the reason Moe is standing by the coffee stand is that he now owns the coffee stand.....in order to capitalize on Barney's new addiction.
You are wrong! Bring it up in therapy, so that you may learn TO DEAL!!!
-Bob
In article , [email] says...
2 against 1 means that you are wrong.
laced
No, it's 2 against 2! There's me and there's R H Menzel, the guy you just replied to. No wait, in fact it's *3* against 2 - read Alan Hamilton's post.
Like I said, just admit you're incorrect. There was NOTHING in the scene that indicated that there was any alcohol in the coffee.
In article , [email] says...
Moe's presence.
And I thought the Simpsons was the only thing that was animated here, but there's you as well.
1st of all--being outnumbered doesn't mean you're wrong, 2nd--The coffee was NOT spiked 3rd---Where's my hat?
david
Dave Conroy wrote in message news:[email]...
Yeah, but it makes it harder to argue your point.
Moe was just trying to make back his money by selling coffee to Barney. Just because Moe usually sells beer does not mean that he did that time. Moe's presence *does not* indicate there was alcohol in the coffee. Any anyway, Barney has been seen drinking coffee in later episodes, so this backs it up.
<out come the handbags> Personal abuse will get you nowhere. Look, I know I've proved you wrong, but there's no need to have a tantrum about it. Move on. </out come the handbags>
In article , [email] says...
You haven't proved me wrong at all.
I guess this is a case where we'll have to agree to disagree.
In article , [email] says...
But then we'd have to disagree to part.
Oh, the things we do for Simpsons.
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 11:48:00 -0700, "R H Menzel" wrote:
And why doesn't Barney act drunk any more? You can tell by his hair -- sober Barney has neatly combed hair.
"Scott Vivian" wrote in message news:ah1sit$m6j$[email]...
I only saw that episode once, but *I* thought that Moe had put alcohol in the coffee. That's certainly how it was presented.
Ciao Peter
for
drinking
No he didn't, because Homer added alcohol to his own when he tried the coffee.
In article ,
He went off the booze and back on it again later in the same episode, (the "inanimate carbon rod" episode), why can't he go off it and back on in a different episode?
rarely mentioned really, only when they do an Apu story is this a factor.
been going on for so long by now and like Apu is rarely mentioned. Might be shown a couple of times a season at best.
Their seperation has happened so long ago by now that the odd episode being shown in the wrong order makes little difference. One weeks episode makes no difference to the next weeks.
Barney drinking coffee? Got me stumpped there. Is that a joke?
no... he gave up alcohol for one episode, namely "Days of Wine and D'oh-ses" and stayed sober at the end. And no, there wasn't any alcohol in the coffee!
Does it really matter if they show the Simpsons out of order? It's not as if the episodes have to be viewed in a particular order for them to make sense.
He did say THAT to be controversial did he :)
He did say THAT to be controversial did he :)
sorry, i ment i prefer the newer episodes to the older episodes in my last post :)
post :)
I kinda assumed :)
I do like some of the new episodes, and unlike the capsule reviewers i'd never say "an episode with no laughs". They all have funny bits. One I really liked the first and only time I saw it was "The Blunder Years", ignoring continuity and all, the screaming was very funny.
Going back to an earlier part of this thread and they showed Days of Wine and D'ohses again tonight, and it's quite obvious that Moe's spiked the coffee with beer. Homer just added more alcohol to it.
new
already
No, by at least one other person. I'm tired of this argument, let's talk about something else. I'm going home.
In article , [email] says...
Admitting defeat at last.
No! He is NOT wrong...he's just annoyed with all your stupid arguments, and attempted insults....BARNEY DOES NOT DRINK SPIKED COFFEE!
david
"Dave Conroy" wrote in message news:[email]...
and
If I could just but in on this argument...... at the end of the episode in question it certainly appears (or it did to me and my friends, anyway) that Moe has spiked Barney's coffee. It is one of only two post-Season 9 episodes which I've seen so I'm not sure about the ramifications in later episodes, but when I saw it, that is what I believed. If that wasn't the writers' intention, then I'd suggest that the direction of that scene was quite misleading.
Ciao Peter
No of course I'm not. If you were a real Simpsons fan you would have recognised the Simpsons quote.
In article ,
I saw the episode when it was repeated recently. There's no suggestion that Moe is putting alcohol in the coffee, just that Moe has found another way to make money out of Barney's new addiction.
Dave